I've been using AutoCAD since 1993 and I type only with my left hand and
mouse with my right.
The keypad is useless in this regard.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> AutoCAD LT
>
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:kufOd.14446$uc.11067@trnddc05...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Geez. He might as well have cut the cord to the computer also. I
>>> would have a very hard time drawing with out a keypad.
>>
>> What software are you using that makes good use of the keypad?
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>>
>
>
P.S. I type 70+ WPM and 25-30 WPM on numbers. I shared an office this
summer with one of those 20-something web-designer wiz kids. He averaged at
least 120 WPM for normal typing and at least 80 WPM for special keys and
numbers. He typed raw HTML faster than I can type "Now is the time for all
good men..." And I'm better than a lot of secretaries I worked with. ;-)
Humbling. !*@@#$%# kids!
In article <[email protected]>,
Bernie Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark,
>
>That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs from out
>dialing the DTMF receivers. DTMF tones must be minimum 50ms on and 50ms off
>to meet spec for the receivers.
35ms, actually.
> A 10 key operator can dial way faster than
>that, but their calls wouldn't go through.
>
>No the bigger quiz is why are the area codes layed out the way they are?
>What is the pattern?
The 'pattern' for the _original_ area-code assignments was related to the
population of the area served. Places with higher populations (thus more
incoming calls) got codes that were "shorter" (in terms of the number of
dial *pulses* required) to dial. To wit: NYC (212) -- 5 pulses, Chicago
(312), and Los Angeles (213) -- 6 pulses, Dallas (214), and Pittsburgh
(412) -- 6 pulses, Then there are Alaska (907), and Hawaii(808), both
of which are TWENTY SIX pulses. With 'traditional' 10 pulse/second dialing,
that is a *minimum* of an additional 2 seconds to dial a number in those
locations.
There was also an effort made to ensure that 'numerically close' codes
were _geographically_ diverse. This helped to reduce the frequency of
'wrong number' area-code dialings.
When areacode 'splits' became necessary, 'pulse' dialing was *mostly* dead,
and the additional codes were assigned _mostly_ based on trying to maintain
geographic diversity -- i.e. something that was *not* 'similar' to anything
already in use in -that- vicinity.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bernie Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well actually its an accoustic thing. To be able to accurately identify the
>DTMF tones the circuit takes a curtain number of cycles to lock onto the
>tone. DTMF tones are mid range tones, the lower component is under 1,000 hz.
>This lenthens the amount of time it takes to detect. Basically the fastest
>you can dial is a 10 digit call in 1 second. The detectors can't work
>reliably much faster than that with all the other considerations,
You might be surprised. <grin>
Early Hayes Smartmodem "clones" let you set the tone timing to _very_fast_.
i.e., some units would allow settings as short as 15ms. *Default* setting
was 50ms. The only place I ever found full 50ms timing _required_ was where
the switch, itself, was _pulse_, and there was a DTMF-to-pulse front-end.
Where the switch was "natively" DTMF -- at least in _my_ experience -- you
could always shorten the timing to 35ms. And, often, even faster. Typically,
I found the 'failure to capture' reliably point was around 20-22ms. I didn't
want to run 'right on the edge', so I routinely ran with 25ms timing.
> cost being
>a big one, hahahaha.
>
>Bernie
>
>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:s%zOd.14694$uc.5414@trnddc05...
>> Bernie Hunt wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs
>>> from out dialing the DTMF receivers.
>>
>> Seriously? They repeated the same bad decision that left us with the
>> QWERTY keyboard?
Bogon!
The telephone keypad arrangement was dictate by the fact that there are
*letters* on most of the keys, and "Standard English" reads left-to-right,
TOP-TO-BOTTOM.
The '10 key' compatible arrangement, to wit:
PRS TUV XYZ [C]
GHI JKL MNO [B]
--- ABC DEF [A]
* 0 # [D]
Would *not* have made a whole lot of sense.
Note: the _full_ touch-tone pad *IS* a 4x4(!!) grid. With the official
labelling for the 'extra' column being "A B C D", in sequence of the
'row' tones.
The key-label to DTMF tone-pair mapping *could* have been done differently,
such that one would not have the above 'silliness' with the 'column 4'
labels. but you'd still have to deal with the lines of letters reading
from bottom to top.
Note: Bell Labs *did* test both arrangements, and found the 'non-10-key'
layout "worked better" for the vast majority of people. Especially so in
NON-DESKTOP situations -- e.g. wall phones, pay phones, trim-line phones,
etc.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bernie Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert,
>
>You have to remember that our telephone system is designed for worse case,
>which we fortunately rarely see. Back in the 80s I ran across some wiring
>that was run exposed as the top strands of barb wire!
Heh! I was _on_ some of that precise kind of wiring, for a while, back in
the 60s -- a "4-party" fence, in point of actual fact. :) (call quality went
to h*ll, when a cow decided to lean on the fence, too.) In the earlier days,
there was a _lot_ of that kind of wiring. I'm somewhat surprised that it
(fence wire) was still in use in the 80s, though. I'm curious, where was
that?
> I was always amazed at
>how our telephone system could keep running while maintaining all the
>embedded base. In the cities you can push the tolerances quite a bit, but
>getting out away from the new switchs and better wiring the toleranced
>matter!
As far as 'outside plant' goes, rural areas were _more_ likely to get
upgraded than the big-city 'central city'. Downtown would get the
newer C.O. switches, but the wiring to the customer was a "whole 'nuther
story."
One of the *really* nice things about DTMF, however -- the wiring _mostly_
dropped out of the equation. DTMF transits long distances, and 'strange'
wiring *better* than dial pulses.
The _big_ performance difference was tone detection via computerized DSP
vs. the early PLL detectors. PLL detectors needed the 50ms, the DSP
chips and algorithms were specced at <35ms, worst case, I believe.
>Funniest thing I ever ran into was when I put some ACDs into offices colated
>with COs. The audio and loop current was so hot, we had to use altenuators
>and simluated line loss to keep from burning out line cards and causing
>accoustic shock for the users. We were sitting right on top of the CO and
>all their specs were assuming alot of loss in loop current and audio before
>it got to the customer premise. It actually took a whle to figure out the
>problem because you rarely ever hear of too much audio or too much loop
>current. Field guys are always looking for more, not less, hahaha.
Yuppers. been there, done that. Local school district put in a private
phone system -- leased 'transit' from the _gas_ company; optical fiber *in*
the gas lines -- got a bargain rate, too; this was 'found money' to the gas
company. This involved disconnecting *all* the telco lines, running to _all_
the schools, and substituting a relative handful of 'trunk' lines tied to the
district's switch. The ILEC got shitty about the matter, and was demanding
*beaucoup* dollars 'per mile' for installing the trunk lines between the C.O.
and the school district H.Q. The school system had *GOOD* telecom people.
They went and rented a 'closet' *across* *the*street* from the telco C.O.,
and said 'terminate the lines *there*', Then they back-hauled on their gas-
pipe fiber to the switch. Telco was *REALLY* pissed -- they got an entire
*seventy-five*feet* of their 'many thousand dollar per mile' charge.
At roughly '100 wire feet' from the switch, one was, for all practical
purposes (*except* what one paid the telco, that is) co-located.
Telco had _really_ wanted the school district to co-lo their *switch*
_at_ the telco. Then they could charge (recurring!!) for the space,
utilities, etc. Over and above the line charges. As it was, they got
the recurring line charges, and that 75' of one-time install. Renting
that 'closet' was somewhere under 10% of what the telco wanted for
colo space.
Insult to injury, *most* (like around 80%) of the call traffic for the
schools was to/from *other* school facilities. When everything was
interconnected through the private switch, the traffic level to the
'public' network plummeted. The half-a-dozen (or more) lines to
a couple of hundred locations got replaced with an amazingly _small_
number of trunks.
The whole system paid for itself _incredibly_ quickly, out of the money
that _used_ to go to the telco.
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bernie Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Well actually its an accoustic thing. To be able to accurately identify
>>>the
>>>DTMF tones the circuit takes a curtain number of cycles to lock onto the
>>>tone. DTMF tones are mid range tones, the lower component is under 1,000
>>>hz.
>>>This lenthens the amount of time it takes to detect. Basically the fastest
>>>you can dial is a 10 digit call in 1 second. The detectors can't work
>>>reliably much faster than that with all the other considerations,
>>
>> You might be surprised. <grin>
>>
>> Early Hayes Smartmodem "clones" let you set the tone timing to
>> _very_fast_.
>> i.e., some units would allow settings as short as 15ms. *Default* setting
>> was 50ms. The only place I ever found full 50ms timing _required_ was
>> where
>> the switch, itself, was _pulse_, and there was a DTMF-to-pulse front-end.
>> Where the switch was "natively" DTMF -- at least in _my_ experience -- you
>> could always shorten the timing to 35ms. And, often, even faster.
>> Typically,
>> I found the 'failure to capture' reliably point was around 20-22ms. I
>> didn't
>> want to run 'right on the edge', so I routinely ran with 25ms timing.
>>
>>> cost
>>> being
>>>a big one, hahahaha.
>>>
>>>Bernie
>>>
>>>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:s%zOd.14694$uc.5414@trnddc05...
>>>> Bernie Hunt wrote:
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs
>>>>> from out dialing the DTMF receivers.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously? They repeated the same bad decision that left us with the
>>>> QWERTY keyboard?
>>
>> Bogon!
>>
>> The telephone keypad arrangement was dictate by the fact that there are
>> *letters* on most of the keys, and "Standard English" reads
>> left-to-right,
>> TOP-TO-BOTTOM.
>>
>> The '10 key' compatible arrangement, to wit:
>>
>> PRS TUV XYZ [C]
>>
>> GHI JKL MNO [B]
>>
>> --- ABC DEF [A]
>>
>> * 0 # [D]
>>
>>
>> Would *not* have made a whole lot of sense.
>> Note: the _full_ touch-tone pad *IS* a 4x4(!!) grid. With the official
>> labelling for the 'extra' column being "A B C D", in sequence of the
>> 'row' tones.
>>
>> The key-label to DTMF tone-pair mapping *could* have been done
>> differently,
>> such that one would not have the above 'silliness' with the 'column 4'
>> labels. but you'd still have to deal with the lines of letters reading
>> from bottom to top.
>>
>> Note: Bell Labs *did* test both arrangements, and found the 'non-10-key'
>> layout "worked better" for the vast majority of people. Especially so in
>> NON-DESKTOP situations -- e.g. wall phones, pay phones, trim-line phones,
>> etc.
>>
>
>
Mark,
That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs from out
dialing the DTMF receivers. DTMF tones must be minimum 50ms on and 50ms off
to meet spec for the receivers. A 10 key operator can dial way faster than
that, but their calls wouldn't go through.
No the bigger quiz is why are the area codes layed out the way they are?
What is the pattern?
Bernie
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1rfOd.14445$uc.11632@trnddc05...
Snip
> planes flying through rain clouds. I got *really* fast on a 10-key. (Why
> in the h*ll Ma Bell decided phone keys should be the opposite is beyond
> me!)
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:h7eOd.14168$uc.13434@trnddc02...
> Greetings! I have been too busy to spend time in the wreck but here is a
> link I think some of you may appreciate. ;-)
>
> http://tlb.org/keyboardchop.html
>
> -- Mark
>
Geez. He might as well have cut the cord to the computer also. I would
have a very hard time drawing with out a keypad.
>
A.M. Wood wrote:
> Like any tool, the 10 key appears useless to anyone who doesn't know
> how to use it.
Aye, but what if you don't need it? <g> In college I had a job entering
cloud particle sizes into a database from microfiche filmed in real time by
planes flying through rain clouds. I got *really* fast on a 10-key. (Why
in the h*ll Ma Bell decided phone keys should be the opposite is beyond me!)
But that was 25 years ago. The majority of my income since then has come
from writing software. The keypad on the keyboards has been less useful
than anything the Handyman club of America has sent. It's just 4 more
inches I have to reach to get to the mouse.
I'm thinking of getting one of these to get the keypad entirely out of the
way.
http://www.sforh.com/keyboards/comfort-ergoflex.html
(I'd still like the "jkl;" pad to have the cursor keys, though.)
-- Mark
Mark Jerde wrote:
> Greetings! I have been too busy to spend time in the wreck but here is a
> link I think some of you may appreciate. ;-)
>
> http://tlb.org/keyboardchop.html
Not me. I can't imagine the point of that. I use my numeric keypad all the
time. Now an article on rearranging those stupid new keyboards so they
have the same layout as the old ones from the early '90s, that's worth
doing. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> Area codes were designed in 1940's, with dial phones which used pulses.
> Each pulse was a fixed duration.
What do you mean "had?" My grandmother still has one of those. I used one
in a furniture store in North Carolina once to dial a 1-800- number. Wow,
that sucked. I had to try three times before I got it right.
We had a rotary dial until the phone company stopped charging a $3 surcharge
for touchtone, even though by then our last phone with a real rotary on it
was years in the past.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Mark Jerde wrote:
> BTW "life" has been happening but the keyboard will be sent... ;-)
Life has been happening here too. I forgot all about it. No hurry. I
still want it though.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/
Silvan wrote:
>> Greetings! I have been too busy to spend time in the wreck but here
>> is a link I think some of you may appreciate. ;-)
>>
>> http://tlb.org/keyboardchop.html
>
> Not me. I can't imagine the point of that. I use my numeric keypad
> all the time. Now an article on rearranging those stupid new
> keyboards so they have the same layout as the old ones from the early
> '90s, that's worth doing. :)
A couple of URLs you may be interested in.
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.72284
http://www.sforh.com/
BTW "life" has been happening but the keyboard will be sent... ;-)
-- Mark
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0bAOd.14708$uc.3588@trnddc05...
> P.S. I type 70+ WPM and 25-30 WPM on numbers. I shared an office this
> summer with one of those 20-something web-designer wiz kids. He averaged
> at least 120 WPM for normal typing and at least 80 WPM for special keys
> and numbers. He typed raw HTML faster than I can type "Now is the time
> for all good men..." And I'm better than a lot of secretaries I worked
> with. ;-) Humbling. !*@@#$%# kids!
>
My 17 year old son borders on typing that fast.
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:EFfOd.14447$uc.14061@trnddc05...
>
> Of the gazillion Windows programs installed on my 7 computers at home, the
> only one I can think of that makes special use of the keypad is Quicken
> (2002?) and that's only the keypad "+" and "-" for incrementing and
> decrementing dates.
>
So do you not use the 10 key pad? I think clicking the mouse on the little
drop down calculator in Quicken or using the numbers across the top would
be a PIA and would make the entry Slooooow. Spread sheet data entry would
be a PIA also. Or data entry in Sheet Layout or Cutlist Plus would be a PIA
with out the keypad. Or data entry in Fund Manager would be a PIA without a
key pad. Geez lets go ahead and throw in TurboTax. And again, AutoCAD
would be a PIA with out the 10 key pad.
Wow lets go ahead and throw in the Calculator too. I would HATE to be
restricted by the number keys across the top when using the calculator. Do
you feel you are hunting pecker when using the 10 key pad? :~)
You know you could also use the Windows on screen Keyboard and click on the
buttons but that would be a PIA also.
Which programs do you use that work easier and let you enter data faster by
using the number keys across the top?
Mark Jerde wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Geez. He might as well have cut the cord to the computer also. I
>> would have a very hard time drawing with out a keypad.
>
> What software are you using that makes good use of the keypad?
In the MS-DOS era programs tended to make good use of function and special
keys. In WinDoze few programs do. It's extremely rare to be able to
control a WinDoze program via simple simple scripting such as a .BAT file.
Of the gazillion Windows programs installed on my 7 computers at home, the
only one I can think of that makes special use of the keypad is Quicken
(2002?) and that's only the keypad "+" and "-" for incrementing and
decrementing dates.
-- Mark
Leon wrote:
> Which programs do you use that work easier and let you enter data
> faster by using the number keys across the top?
In 1975 I was one of two boys in the high school typing class. I learned to
touch type the number row pretty well. Unless I'm typing something like this
const pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884
I just use the keys conveniently placed above my fingers in the normal
typing position. ;-)
-- Mark
Like you, I want to move my hand as little as possible from the key pad to
the track ball.
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qUzOd.14691$uc.8915@trnddc05...
> Leon wrote:
>> AutoCAD LT
>
> Ok.
>
> -- Mark
>>
>>
>> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:kufOd.14446$uc.11067@trnddc05...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geez. He might as well have cut the cord to the computer also. I
>>>> would have a very hard time drawing with out a keypad.
>>>
>>> What software are you using that makes good use of the keypad?
>>>
>>> -- Mark
>
>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0bAOd.14708$uc.3588@trnddc05...
>> P.S. I type 70+ WPM and 25-30 WPM on numbers. I shared an office this
>> summer with one of those 20-something web-designer wiz kids. He averaged
>> at least 120 WPM for normal typing and at least 80 WPM for special keys
>> and numbers. He typed raw HTML faster than I can type "Now is the time
>> for all good men..." And I'm better than a lot of secretaries I worked
>> with. ;-) Humbling. !*@@#$%# kids!
>>
> My 17 year old son borders on typing that fast.
Same here, my sons the fastest typer I ever saw, and he does it with such a
smal font too. I think is monitor is at 1600x1280 and I can barely see what
he's doing. sheesh....guess I need to get my trifocals revamped. ;-)
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FTzOd.14690$uc.4361@trnddc05...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Which programs do you use that work easier and let you enter data
>> faster by using the number keys across the top?
>
> In 1975 I was one of two boys in the high school typing class. I learned
> to touch type the number row pretty well. Unless I'm typing something like
> this
> const pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884
> I just use the keys conveniently placed above my fingers in the normal
> typing position. ;-)
>
> -- Mark
Yeah I did that in HS and in college. Having been in the automotive
business for most of my professional life I entered part numbers all day
long for years.
B a r r y wrote:
> Mark Jerde wrote:
>
>> What software are you using that makes good use of the keypad?
>>
>> -- Mark
>
>
> Excel and Quicken.
Ok. ;-) I can usually have the number mostly touch typed in before I'd
get my hand repositioned on the keypad. But if it was quicker to use the
keypad I would.
-- Mark
AutoCAD LT
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kufOd.14446$uc.11067@trnddc05...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Geez. He might as well have cut the cord to the computer also. I
>> would have a very hard time drawing with out a keypad.
>
> What software are you using that makes good use of the keypad?
>
> -- Mark
>
>
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1rfOd.14445$uc.11632@trnddc05...
> A.M. Wood wrote:
>
>> Like any tool, the 10 key appears useless to anyone who doesn't know
>> how to use it.
>
> Aye, but what if you don't need it? <g> In college I had a job entering
> cloud particle sizes into a database from microfiche filmed in real time
> by planes flying through rain clouds. I got *really* fast on a 10-key.
> (Why in the h*ll Ma Bell decided phone keys should be the opposite is
> beyond me!) But that was 25 years ago. The majority of my income since
> then has come from writing software. The keypad on the keyboards has been
> less useful than anything the Handyman club of America has sent. It's
> just 4 more inches I have to reach to get to the mouse.
You complain about moving your hand four more inches to get to the mouse,
and you use a mouse that requires the same 4 inches of movement? Have you
ever tried a stationary track ball?
Robert,
You have to remember that our telephone system is designed for worse case,
which we fortunately rarely see. Back in the 80s I ran across some wiring
that was run exposed as the top strands of barb wire! I was always amazed at
how our telephone system could keep running while maintaining all the
embedded base. In the cities you can push the tolerances quite a bit, but
getting out away from the new switchs and better wiring the toleranced
matter!
Funniest thing I ever ran into was when I put some ACDs into offices colated
with COs. The audio and loop current was so hot, we had to use altenuators
and simluated line loss to keep from burning out line cards and causing
accoustic shock for the users. We were sitting right on top of the CO and
all their specs were assuming alot of loss in loop current and audio before
it got to the customer premise. It actually took a whle to figure out the
problem because you rarely ever hear of too much audio or too much loop
current. Field guys are always looking for more, not less, hahaha.
Bernie
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bernie Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Well actually its an accoustic thing. To be able to accurately identify
>>the
>>DTMF tones the circuit takes a curtain number of cycles to lock onto the
>>tone. DTMF tones are mid range tones, the lower component is under 1,000
>>hz.
>>This lenthens the amount of time it takes to detect. Basically the fastest
>>you can dial is a 10 digit call in 1 second. The detectors can't work
>>reliably much faster than that with all the other considerations,
>
> You might be surprised. <grin>
>
> Early Hayes Smartmodem "clones" let you set the tone timing to
> _very_fast_.
> i.e., some units would allow settings as short as 15ms. *Default* setting
> was 50ms. The only place I ever found full 50ms timing _required_ was
> where
> the switch, itself, was _pulse_, and there was a DTMF-to-pulse front-end.
> Where the switch was "natively" DTMF -- at least in _my_ experience -- you
> could always shorten the timing to 35ms. And, often, even faster.
> Typically,
> I found the 'failure to capture' reliably point was around 20-22ms. I
> didn't
> want to run 'right on the edge', so I routinely ran with 25ms timing.
>
>> cost
>> being
>>a big one, hahahaha.
>>
>>Bernie
>>
>>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:s%zOd.14694$uc.5414@trnddc05...
>>> Bernie Hunt wrote:
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>> That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs
>>>> from out dialing the DTMF receivers.
>>>
>>> Seriously? They repeated the same bad decision that left us with the
>>> QWERTY keyboard?
>
> Bogon!
>
> The telephone keypad arrangement was dictate by the fact that there are
> *letters* on most of the keys, and "Standard English" reads
> left-to-right,
> TOP-TO-BOTTOM.
>
> The '10 key' compatible arrangement, to wit:
>
> PRS TUV XYZ [C]
>
> GHI JKL MNO [B]
>
> --- ABC DEF [A]
>
> * 0 # [D]
>
>
> Would *not* have made a whole lot of sense.
> Note: the _full_ touch-tone pad *IS* a 4x4(!!) grid. With the official
> labelling for the 'extra' column being "A B C D", in sequence of the
> 'row' tones.
>
> The key-label to DTMF tone-pair mapping *could* have been done
> differently,
> such that one would not have the above 'silliness' with the 'column 4'
> labels. but you'd still have to deal with the lines of letters reading
> from bottom to top.
>
> Note: Bell Labs *did* test both arrangements, and found the 'non-10-key'
> layout "worked better" for the vast majority of people. Especially so in
> NON-DESKTOP situations -- e.g. wall phones, pay phones, trim-line phones,
> etc.
>
"Bernie Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
Today, we worry about the lasers being too 'hot'...
Patriarch
"Rob Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
> Some people will go a long way to get the Microsoft logo of their
> keyboard.
>
> What really surprised me was that he destroyed the first keyboard, AND
> THEN TRIED IT AGAIN!
.Just get this and fold the 10 key pad under.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=309746&pfp=cat3
or this
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=50095975&pfp=BROWSE
and finally this after you realize that removing it was not such a good
idea.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=306121&pfp=BROWSE
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:04:28 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>P.S. I type 70+ WPM and 25-30 WPM on numbers. I shared an office this
>summer with one of those 20-something web-designer wiz kids. He averaged at
>least 120 WPM for normal typing and at least 80 WPM for special keys and
>numbers. He typed raw HTML faster than I can type "Now is the time for all
>good men..." And I'm better than a lot of secretaries I worked with. ;-)
>Humbling. !*@@#$%# kids!
When I was in school I had a friend whose mother was a civil service
secretary. She could type over 120 WPM corrected - on a manual
typewriter!
I used to do 90+ when I was programming, but that was a long time ago
and I have arthritis problems in my fingers now, so it is a *lot*
slower.
Besides, I don't think fast enough to type at that speed.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"Bernie Hunt" <[email protected]> writes:
> No the bigger quiz is why are the area codes layed out the way they are?
> What is the pattern?
http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/areacodes.html
Area codes were designed in 1940's, with dial phones which used pulses.
Each pulse was a fixed duration.
When you dialed, those pulses caused relays to click into place as
the purses were sent through the lines.
the digit "1" was shortest and 0 was longest.
In those days, area codes either had a 0 or 1 in the second digit.
So the busiest codes were shortest in number of pulses.
Area Code "Clicks" to dial
New York City 212 5
Los Angeles 213 6
Chicago 312 6
Detroit 313 7
Dallas 214 7
Pittsburgh 412 7
[snip]
Montana 406 20
Wyoming 307 20
Idaho 208 20
Vermont 802 20
South Carolina 803 21
Eastern Washington 509 24
Alaska 907 26
Hawaii 808 26
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Silvan <[email protected]> writes:
> Bruce Barnett wrote:
>
>> Area codes were designed in 1940's, with dial phones which used pulses.
>> Each pulse was a fixed duration.
>
> What do you mean "had?"
I didn't use "had" describing phones.
I used "had" describing area codes:
>In those days, area codes either had a 0 or 1 in the second digit.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> writes:
> Seriously? They repeated the same bad decision that left us with
> the QWERTY keyboard?
They did it to keep keys from jamming?
I thought they did it so Carrot Top could dial down the middle row.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:55:27 -0500, Rob Mitchell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>What really surprised me was that he destroyed the first keyboard, AND
>THEN TRIED IT AGAIN!
What, you've never screwed up a project then tried again?
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Leon wrote:
> AutoCAD LT
Ok.
-- Mark
>
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:kufOd.14446$uc.11067@trnddc05...
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Geez. He might as well have cut the cord to the computer also. I
>>> would have a very hard time drawing with out a keypad.
>>
>> What software are you using that makes good use of the keypad?
>>
>> -- Mark
Well actually its an accoustic thing. To be able to accurately identify the
DTMF tones the circuit takes a curtain number of cycles to lock onto the
tone. DTMF tones are mid range tones, the lower component is under 1,000 hz.
This lenthens the amount of time it takes to detect. Basically the fastest
you can dial is a 10 digit call in 1 second. The detectors can't work
reliably much faster than that with all the other considerations, cost being
a big one, hahahaha.
Bernie
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:s%zOd.14694$uc.5414@trnddc05...
> Bernie Hunt wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs
>> from out dialing the DTMF receivers.
>
> Seriously? They repeated the same bad decision that left us with the
> QWERTY keyboard?
>
> -- Mark
Bernie Hunt wrote:
> Mark,
>
> That's an easy one. They had to make it different to keep 10 wizs
> from out dialing the DTMF receivers.
Seriously? They repeated the same bad decision that left us with the QWERTY
keyboard?
-- Mark
> DTMF tones must be minimum 50ms
> on and 50ms off to meet spec for the receivers. A 10 key operator can
> dial way faster than that, but their calls wouldn't go through.
>
> No the bigger quiz is why are the area codes layed out the way they
> are? What is the pattern?
>
> Bernie
>
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1rfOd.14445$uc.11632@trnddc05...
>
> Snip
>
>> planes flying through rain clouds. I got *really* fast on a 10-key.
>> (Why in the h*ll Ma Bell decided phone keys should be the opposite
>> is beyond me!)
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!
Bernie
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bernie Hunt" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> No the bigger quiz is why are the area codes layed out the way they are?
>> What is the pattern?
>
> http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/areacodes.html
>
> Area codes were designed in 1940's, with dial phones which used pulses.
> Each pulse was a fixed duration.
> When you dialed, those pulses caused relays to click into place as
> the purses were sent through the lines.
>
> the digit "1" was shortest and 0 was longest.
>
> In those days, area codes either had a 0 or 1 in the second digit.
>
> So the busiest codes were shortest in number of pulses.
>
> Area Code "Clicks" to dial
>
> New York City 212 5
> Los Angeles 213 6
> Chicago 312 6
> Detroit 313 7
> Dallas 214 7
> Pittsburgh 412 7
> [snip]
> Montana 406 20
> Wyoming 307 20
> Idaho 208 20
> Vermont 802 20
> South Carolina 803 21
> Eastern Washington 509 24
> Alaska 907 26
> Hawaii 808 26
>
>
> --
> Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
> $500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
In 1976 I started high school and the rumor in the freshman football team
was that the varsity coach taught the typing class and it was an easy A. So
we all signed up. What we didn't realize was that varsity football coaches
are way to busy to teach a typing class. They have teachers assistants who
don't like football players looking for easy As, to teach typing. We
actually had to learn to type! I thought it was an complete waste of time.
Then 4 years later I get into electronics and suddenly I'm on of the few
guys who can type on a computer. Turned out to be a good thing, hahahhaha.
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FTzOd.14690$uc.4361@trnddc05...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Which programs do you use that work easier and let you enter data
>> faster by using the number keys across the top?
>
> In 1975 I was one of two boys in the high school typing class. I learned
> to touch type the number row pretty well. Unless I'm typing something like
> this
> const pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884
> I just use the keys conveniently placed above my fingers in the normal
> typing position. ;-)
>
> -- Mark
>
Mark Jerde wrote:
> Greetings! I have been too busy to spend time in the wreck but here is a
> link I think some of you may appreciate. ;-)
>
> http://tlb.org/keyboardchop.html
>
> -- Mark
>
>
Some people will go a long way to get the Microsoft logo of their keyboard.
What really surprised me was that he destroyed the first keyboard, AND
THEN TRIED IT AGAIN!
Rob