home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Simtel MSDOS 1992 September
/
Simtel20_Sept92.cdr
/
msdos
/
editor
/
heaven.arc
/
GUIDE.4
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1986-11-20
|
38KB
|
717 lines
31
APPENDIX
WRITER'S HEAVEN AND QUICKEYS
The IBM BIOS causes a pressed key to repeat after a pause.
The length of this pause and the slowness of the subsequent
repetition can be a serious irritant to a writer.
I found a reasonably adequate solution in the program
Quickeys, available at no cost from PC Magazine. Quickeys is a
resident program that shortens the pause and speeds the
repetition. It is loaded by typing QUICKEYS at the DOS prompt.
Subsequent typings of QUICKEYS provide even greater speed. I
strongly recommend QUICKEYS for use with Writer's Heaven.
Because of copyright, I am unable to distribute Quickeys
with Writer's Heaven. Quickeys is documented in PC Magazine,
March 11, 1986, pages 255-258. The article includes code in Basic
and in assembly language. You can also download the program from
PC Magazine's Interactive Reader Service, (212) 696-0360.
If you use Quickeys, be aware of the following minor
problems:
1. Repetition of a cursor or scrolling command may cause you
to "overshoot." A long repetition may give you a beep.
2. Occasionally, a repeated scrolling command may continue
on its own indefinitely, until you press another key. (You can
use ESC, which will not add text.)
3. If you use the Writer's Heaven OTHER KEY with a CURSOR or
SCROLL KEY and continue pressing the second key in the combina-
tion, you may get a beep.
4. Characters inserted with the Alt-keypad method will
repeat endlessly until you press another key.
Hopefully Quicksoft will someday add a similar feature to
PC-Write as an "editor switch" option.
PRINTING THE WRITER'S HEAVEN CONTROL FILE
If desired, the Writer's Heaven control file, ED.DEF, can be
printed out normally by PC-Write, except that the "guidelines"--
principally, the ruler lines--will not appear. The file can also
be printed out in DOS, but you may have to make a copy of the
file and remove from it the special character preceding each
guideline to avoid problems with your printer.
WRITER'S HEAVEN Appendix 32
MODIFYING THE WRITER'S HEAVEN CONTROL FILE
NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY WRITER'S HEAVEN ON ANY DISK THAT
WILL BE COPIED FOR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHERS.
Writer's Heaven basically consists of a custom PC-Write edit
control file, ED.DEF, which is read by the PC-Write edit program
when that program is first loaded. This is a normal text file
containing key redefinitions and other instructions. Directions
for modifying or constructing such files are found in the printed
PC-Write manual (but not in the abridged manual on the PC-Write
disk.) The PC-Write help screen RECORD KEYS contains brief notes.
You may wish to modify the Writer's Heaven file on your
workdisk to add features you're accustomed to--for instance, to
edit the default ruler, to add dot commands or "editor switches,"
or to redefine keys. Or, if you currently use more than one edit
control file--with different extensions--you may wish instead to
copy them to your Writer's Heaven workdisk and append the
Writer's Heaven control file to each of those files, making
changes as needed. (If you're using PC-Write 2.7, you may not
have room on your workdisk to do this.)
WARNING: Do not add the line !PR.DEF to a Writer's Heaven
control file! Due to a bug in PC-Write 2.6 and 2.7, this line
deactivates Writer's Heaven key definitions employing Alt.
If you wish to change PC-Write's default ruler, modify the
ruler at the end of the Writer's Heaven control file only. Any
other ruler acts only on the control file.
To redefine keys used or unused in Writer's Heaven, add your
definitions only to the end of the file. (Some keys not used in
Writer's Heaven have been deactivated by lines in the control
file.) You do not need to delete previous lines. Most of the
Writer's Heaven key redefinitions, though, make up an integrated
system, and are best not tampered with--at least not until you
are familiar with the system.
Though Writer's Heaven takes up most of the choice keys
available for user-defined commands, many keys are still
available--for instance, the numeral keys with Alt, which at
present duplicate the main function keys; and almost all
Ctrl-Shft keys, if you do not need PC-Write's box-drawing
capabilities. You could also use two-key combinations--for
instance, you could define Ctrl-A as a USER KEY, which could be
employed for special functions in combination with any other
keys.
Users of "near-compatibles" who have needed to use the
special PC-Write edit control file ED.SPC may find they no longer
need the key redefinitions found in that file. All the redefined
functions except those normally provided by Ctrl-SPACE and
Alt-SPACE will be accessible with Writer's Heaven commands.
WRITER'S HEAVEN Appendix 33
WRITER'S HEAVEN AND KEYBOARD PROGRAMS
Because of limitations in the IBM BIOS, it is not possible
in PC-Write to assign functions to most punctuation keys in a
shifted status. But if you use a keyboard program that makes this
possible (for instance, Newkey), you can improve the placement of
the Writer's Heaven ACTION KEYS. I suggest the following changes:
1. Reassign the OTHER KEY (Ctrl-O) to Ctrl-semicolon (;).
2. Reassign Alt-OTHER (Alt-O) to Alt-semicolon (;).
3. Reassign the SYMBOL KEY (Ctrl-W) to Ctrl-apostrophe (').
4. Reassign F5 to Ctrl-O (letter O).
5. Reassign ScrollLock (Pushright/Overwrite) to Ctrl-W.
The ACTION KEYS would then look like this:
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ _ _
| ! W ! | | | || | | | || | | | | ! O !| ! P ! ! { ! | |
| !___! |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| |_ _| !___!| !___! !_[_! |_ _|
|PUSH/OVER | | CLEAR| EDIT SWAP
_\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ _ _ ___\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ ___ ___
|| | | | | | || | | ! H !| | | | | | || ! : ! ! " !
_|| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| !___!| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _|| !_;_! !_'_!
\ \ REFORM \ \OTHER SYMBOL
_ _\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ _ _
| || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _|
If you are using a program that creates a Dvorak keyboard,
you may find Writer's Heaven particularly suited to your needs.
Because Writer's Heaven commands are linked more to key positions
than to key names, Writer's Heaven can easily be adapted to
Dvorak. (A Dvorak keyboard can also be created by adding key
redefinition lines to the Writer's Heaven control file on your
work disk or in your hard disk directory. PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY
THE ORIGINAL WRITER'S HEAVEN DISK.)
WRITER'S HEAVEN AS AN IDEAL
As efficient as Writer's Heaven is, it could be improved
significantly if certain limitations were removed from its
software environment (as suggested in the previous section).
Specifically, it would benefit from:
(1) Capability of assigning commands to all punctuation and
numeral keys with Control and Alt. (The IBM BIOS does not
normally allow for this, though some keyboard programs, such as
Newkey, add this capability.)
(2) Capability of defining "nonsticky" two-key combinations,
in which the first key remains down as the second is pressed,
allowing quick repetition. (This is how the "shift-status" keys
Control, Shift, and Alt work currently.)
WRITER'S HEAVEN Appendix 34
These two capabilities would greatly enhance the
implementation of Writer's Heaven. For example, it would allow
the addition of more screen keys. The numerals row might include
mirrored key pairs for "page," "section," and "chapter."
The most important changes, though, would be in the ACTION
KEYS. Most would be moved for more efficient use. Most or all
would no longer be sticky. And new non-sticky keys would be
added, to be used with the UNIT KEYS in an expanded command
matrix. These new keys might include:
MARK KEY. For marking (and unmarking) forward and back by
unit.
DELETE KEY. For deletion forward and back by unit. This
arrangement would replace the current, somewhat clumsy Alt-key
deletion commands.
With the Alt-key combinations no longer needed for deletion,
they could then again be used for symbol insertion, so that the
SYMBOL KEY would no longer be needed. Also, Alt could be used
with both MARK and DELETE to define operations on an entire unit,
both forward and back from the cursor, from within the unit.
The ACTION KEYS might then look something like this:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ ___
| ! W ! | | | || | | | || | | | | ! O !| ! P ! ! { ! | } |
| !___! |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| |_ _| !___!| !___! !_[_! |_]_|
|REFORMAT | | EDIT | MARK SWAP PUSH/
_\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ ___ ___ OVER
|| | | | | | || | | | || | | | | | || ! : ! ! " !
_|| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| |_ _|| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _|| !_;_! !_'_!
\ \ \ \OTHER CLEAR
_ _\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ _\ _ _ _ _ _ _\ ___
| || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ! ? !
|_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| !_/_!
DELETE
These changes await the hands of more sophisticated
programmers than myself: either those at Quicksoft, enhancing
PC-Write's macro facility; or those of another programmer,
inspired by Writer's Heaven to create a word processing program
more capable and efficient than any yet available.
35
NOT WITHOUT US
A Challenge to Computer Professionals to Help Bring the
Present Insanity to a Halt
by Joseph Weizenbaum, professor of computer science at MIT
(This is an English translation of a talk given in German to
the Association of Computer Professionals in West Germany in
July 1986. You are welcome to reproduce and distribute it.)
Whenever I come to Europe, especially to West Germany, I am
amazed by the normality of everyday life: superhighways,
"music" that assaults one in restaurants, the many parks,
the forests of television antennas on the roofs of houses
and so on. I am amazed because of Europe's geographic
position and all that follows from it. In West Germany, for
example, there is the border with the other Germany, dense
with military installations of all sorts. There are holes in
the street that are intended to be filled with nuclear land
mines if Russian tanks should come. These are signs of
Europe's physical and psychological proximity to the final
catastrophe.
We in America are, in a certain sense, no more distant from
the catastrophe than the Europeans are. Not only Chernobyl,
but also the threat of war is everywhere. And war is
everyone's enemy. In case of war, regardless of whether
unintentionally initiated by technology allegedly designed
to avert war, or by so-called statesmen or women who thought
it their duty to push the button, you may die ten minutes
earlier than we in fortress America, but we shall all die.
But we have no holes in our streets for atomic land mines
that are intended to delay Soviet tank regiments. We see our
missile silos only now and then--that is, only whenever it
pleases someone to show them to us on television. No matter
how passionately our government tries to convince us that
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 36
the nasty Soviets are effectively as near to us as to
Europeans, that they threaten us from Cuba and Nicaragua,
Americans are, on the whole, quite unconvinced and
untroubled by such efforts. The American experience of war
has allowed us to develop an "it can't happen here"
attitude, rather than a concrete fear of what appears to be
far removed from the immediate concerns of daily life.
We know that it is emotionally impossible for anyone to live
for very long in the face of immediate threats to existence
without bringing to bear psychological mechanisms that will
exclude these dangers from consciousness, permitting them to
surface only rarely. But when repression necessitates
systematically misdirected efforts, or excludes potentially
life-saving behavior, then it is time to replace it with a
conscious effort to find the prod to correct action.
That time has come for computer professionals. We now have
the power radically to turn the state of the world in
directions conducive to life.
In order to gain the necessary courage--not all of us are
saints or heroes--we have to understand that for us as
individuals, as well as for those we love, our present
behavior is far more dangerous, even life threatening, than
what healthy common sense now demands of us. None of the
weapons that today threaten every human being with murder,
and whose design, manufacture and sale condemns countless
people to starvation, could be developed without the earnest
cooperation of computer professionals. Without us, the arms
race, especially the qualitative arms race, cannot march
another step.
What does this say to us?
First, that we computer experts--as well as specialists in
many other technical domains--share in the guilt of having
brought about the present dangerous state of the world.
Those among us who, perhaps without being aware of it,
devote our talents and strengths to death rather than to
life have little right to curse politicians, statesmen and
women for not bringing us peace. It isn't enough to make
pretty posters that can be carried in demonstrations. Those
who carry them must care whether their daily work helps to
make possible the very devices the use of which they are
protesting.
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 37
At this point, the domain called Artificial Intelligence
(AI) comes especially to mind. Many of the technical tasks
and problems in this subdiscipline of computer science
stimulate the imagination and creativity of technically
oriented workers particularly strongly. Goals like making a
thinking being out of the computer, giving the computer the
ability to understand spoken language, making it possible
for the computer to see, offer nearly irresistible
temptations to those among us who have not fully sublimated
our playful sandbox fantasies, or who mean to satisfy our
delusions of omnipotence on the computer stage. Such tasks
are extraordinarily demanding and interesting. Robert
Oppenheimer called them sweet. Besides, research projects in
these areas are generously funded. The required moneys
usually come out of the coffers of the military, at least in
America.
It is enormously tempting and, in Artificial Intelligence
work, seductively simple to lose or hide oneself in details,
in subproblems and their subproblems and so on. The actual
problems on which one works--and which are so generously
supported--are disguised and transformed until their
representations are mere fables: harmless, innocent, lovely
fairy tales.
Here is an example. A doctoral student characterized his
projected dissertation task as follows. A child, six or
seven years old, sits in front of a computer display that
shows a kitten and a bear, in full color. The kitten is
playing with a ball. The child speaks to the computer
system: "The bear should say 'thank you' when someone gives
him something." The system responds in a synthetic, but
nevertheless pleasing voice: "Thank you, I understand." Then
the child again: "Kitty, give your ball to your friend."
Immediately we see the kitten on the computer display throw
the ball to the bear. Then we hear the bear say: "Thank you,
my dear kitten."
This is the kernel of what the system, development of which
is to constitute the student's doctoral work, is to
accomplish. Seen from a technical point of view, the system
is to understand spoken instructions--that alone is not
simple--and translate them into a computer program which it
is then to integrate seamlessly into its own computational
structure. Not at all trivial, and beyond that, quite
touching.
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 38
Now a translation to reality. A fighter pilot is addressed
by his pilot's assistant system: "Sir, I see an enemy tank
column below. Your orders, please." The pilot: "When you see
something like that, don't bother me, destroy the bastards
and record the action. That's all." The system answers:
"Yes, sir!" and the plane's rockets fly earthward.
This pilot's assistant system is one of three weapons
systems that are expressly described, mainly as a problem
for artificial intelligence, in the Strategic Computing
Initiative, a new major research and development program of
the American military. Over $600,000,000 are to be spent on
this program in the next four or five years.
It isn't my intention to assail or revile military systems
at this point. I intend this example from the actual
practice of academic artificial intelligence research in
America to illustrate the euphemistic linguistic
dissimulation whose effect it is to hinder thought and,
ultimately, to still conscience.
I don't know whether it is especially computer science or
its subdiscipline Artificial Intelligence that has such an
enormous affection for euphemism. We speak so readily of
computer systems that understand, that see, decide, make
judgments, and so on, without ourselves recognizing our own
superficiality and immeasurable naivete with respect to
these concepts. We anesthetize our ability to evaluate the
quality of our work and, what is more important, to identify
and become conscious of its end use.
The student mentioned above imagines his work to be about
computer games for children, involving perhaps toy kittens,
bears and balls. Its actual and intended end use will
probably mean that some day a young man, quite like the
student himself--someone with parents and possibly a girl
friend--will be set afire by an exploding missile sent his
way by a system shaped by his own research. The
psychological distance between the student's conception of
his work and its actual implications is astronomic. It is
precisely that enormous distance that makes it possible not
to know and not to ask if one is doing sensible work or
contributing to the greater efficiency of murderous devices.
One can't escape this state without asking, again and again:
"What do I actually do? What is the final application and
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 39
use of my work? Am I content or ashamed to have contributed
to this use?"
I am reminded in this context of a well known American
journalist who, during a Middle East highjacking, suggested
that under certain circumstances the Israelis shoot ten Arab
prisoners and, should the circumstances not change, shoot
ten more the next day, and so on. He should not have made
this suggestion unless he was prepared to go personally
among the prisoners and look into the eyes of the men, some
of whom would hear him say, "You, you will die today." He
should have been prepared as well to hold the pistol to the
heads of those he selected and command his own finger to
pull the trigger.
Just so should we ask ourselves about our own work. Once we
have abandoned the prettifying of our language, we can begin
to speak among ourselves realistically and in earnest about
our work as computer professionals.
"You, colleague of many years, you are working on a machine
consisting of two to the fifteenth and more microprocessors
running simultaneously. With the help of such a machine one
can fist simulate then construct much more efficient,
smaller and lighter hydrogen bombs. Imagine, for a moment,
you were an eyewitness at Hiroshima in 1945; you saw people
stripped of their skin die. Would you want to make this
happen thousands of times more? Would you so torture a
single human being with your own hands? If you would not,
regardless of what end would be served, then you must stop
your work."
One should ask similar questions with respect to other
branches of computer science, for example, with respect to
attempts to make it possible for computer systems to see.
Progress in this domain will be used to steer missiles like
the Cruise and Pershing ever more precisely to their
targets, where murder will be committed.
Many will argue that the computer is merely a tool. As such
it can be used for good or evil. In and of itself, it is
value free. Scientists and technicians cannot know how the
products of their work will be applied, whether they will
find a good or an evil use. Hence scientists and technicians
cannot be held responsible for the final application of
their work.
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 40
That point of view is manifested in the world famous Draper
Laboratory, next door to the MIT building where I work.
Draper is devoted almost entirely to missile guidance and
submarine navigation. Many of the scientists employed there
argue that the systems they work on can take men to the moon
and bring them back, as well as guarantee that missiles
aimed at Moscow will actually hit Moscow, their target. They
cannot know in advance, they say, which of these two or
still other goals their work will serve in the end. How then
can they be held responsible for all the possible
consequences of their work?
So it is, on the whole, with computer professionals. The
doctoral student I mentioned, who wishes to be able to
converse with his computer display, does in fact believe
that future applications of his work will be exclusively in
innocent applications like children's games. Perhaps his
research is not sponsored by the Pentagon's Strategic
Computing Initiative; perhaps he never even heard of SCI.
How then can he be held responsible if his work is put to
anti-human use?
Here is where we come to the essence of the matter. Today we
know with virtual certainty that every scientific and
technical result will, if at all possible, be put to use in
military systems.
The computer, together with the history of its development,
is perhaps the key example. But we should also think in this
connection of everything that has to do with flight, or of
things atomic, of communications systems, satellites, space
ships, and most of the scientific achievements of the human
genius. We may then convince ourselves that in the concrete
world in which we live, the burden of proof rests with those
who assert that a specific new development is immune from
the greed of the military.
In these circumstances, scientific and technical workers
cannot escape their responsibility to inquire about the end
use of their work. They must then decide, once they know to
what end it will be used, whether or not they would serve
these ends with their own hands.
I don't believe the military, in and of itself, to be an
evil. Nor would I assert that the fact that a specific
technology that has been adopted by the military is, on that
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 41
ground alone, an evil. In the present state of the evolution
of the sovereign nation-state--in other words, in the insane
asylum in which we live--each state needs a military just as
every city needs a fire department. But no one pleads for a
fire station on every corner, and no one wishes for a city
fire department that makes a side business of committing
arson in the villages adjacent to the city.
But we see our entire world, particularly its universities
and science and engineering facilities, being more
profoundly militarized every day. "Little" wars burn in
almost every part of the earth. (They serve, in part, to
test the high tech weapons of the "more advanced nations.")
More than half of all the earth's scientists and engineers
work more or less directly in military institutions, or in
institutions supported by the military. That is an evil that
must be resisted.
We must also recognize that it is only our already
internalized habit of prettifying our language, in order not
to arouse our conscience, that permits us to speak in terms
of weapons and weapons delivery systems at all, when we are,
in fact, discussing atomic explosives and hydrogen bombs.
Those aren't weapons, they are mass murder machines and mass
murder machine delivery systems. That is how we should speak
of them: clearly, distinctly, and without evasion. Once we
recognize that a nuclear mass murder machine is nothing
other than an instant Auschwitz--without railroads or
Eichmanns or Dr. Mengele, but an Auschwitz just the same--
can we continue then to work on systems that steer these
devices to living cities?
That is the question I ask. Each of us must earnestly ask
ourselves such questions and deeply consider the responses
we find in ourselves. Our answers must finally manifest
themselves in our actions--concretely, in what we do every
day.
Probably the most pandemic mental illness of our time is the
almost universally held belief that the individual is
powerless. This self-fulfilling delusion will surely be
offered as a counter argument to my theses. I demand, do I
not, that a whole profession refuse to participate in the
murderous insanity of our time. "That cannot be effective,"
I can already hear it said," That is plainly impossible.
After all, if I don't do it, someone else will."
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 42
First, and on the most elementary level, "If I don't do it,
someone else will" cannot serve as a basis of moral
behavior. Every crime imaginable can be justified with those
words. For example: If I don't steal the sleeping drunk's
money, someone else will. But it is not at all trivial to
ask after the meaning of effectiveness in the present
context. Surely, effectiveness is not a binary matter, an
either/or matter. To be sure, if what I say here were to
induce a strike on the part of all scientists with respect
to weapons work, that would have to be counted as effective.
But there are many much more modest measures of
effectiveness.
I think it was George Orwell who once wrote, "The highest
duty of intellectuals in these times is to speak the
simplest truths in the simplest possible words." For me that
means, first of all, to articulate the absurdity of our work
in my actions, my writings and with my voice. I hope thereby
to stir my students, my colleagues, everyone to whom I can
speak directly. I hope to encourage those who have already
begun to think similarly, and to be encouraged by them, and
possibly rouse others out of their slumber. Courage, like
fear is catching.
Even the most modest success in such attempts has to be
counted as effective. Beyond that, in speaking as I do, I
put what I discuss here on the public agenda and contribute
to its legitimation. These are modest goals that can surely
be reached.
But, finally, I want to address such larger goals as, for
example:
-- Ridding the world of nuclear mass murder devices and
perhaps also of nuclear power generators.
-- So reordering the world that it becomes impossible
ever again to convince workers of one country that
it is a necessity of life that they feed their
families on the flesh and the blood and the tears of
people of other countries. (That is, unfortunately,
the fate of many workers today, and not only those
who earn their daily bread in armaments factories,
but equally those of us whose daily work is to
sharpen high tech weapons.)
WRITER'S HEAVEN Not Without Us 43
-- So reordering the world that every human being has
available to him or herself all material goods
necessary for living in dignity. (I have often heard
well-meaning people say that, if we apply
technology, especially computer and communications
technology wisely, we may reach this goal in perhaps
50 to 100 years. But we can reach it sooner, and
without waiting for technological advances. For the
obstacle is not the absence of technology, it is the
absence of political will.)
I once heard Elie Wiesel say: "We must believe the
impossible is possible." I understood that in two different
ways. First, had we been able to believe that "the land of
the poets and the thinkers" could give birth to human
extermination factories, we might not have had to experience
Bergen Belsen. The impossible horror proved possible and
became reality.
But there is a more hopeful interpretation. It seemed
impossible in the America of only 150 years ago ever to
abolish the slavery of the black people. The entire economy
of America's south was built on cotton. Cotton could neither
be planted nor harvested, it was believed, without the
unpaid toil of thousands of human beings out of whose
wretchedness the plantation master could squeeze his profit.
Nevertheless, at first only a few farseeing men and women,
dreamers all, in Massachusetts, later many more citizens,
came to believe the impossible was possible, that the slaves
could be freed and slavery ended.
The impossible goals I mention here are possible, just as it
is possible that we will destroy the human race. I alone can
neither achieve the one nor prevent the other. But neither
can it be done without me, without us.
I have no right to demand anything from my colleagues. But
they must know that we have the power either to increase the
efficiency of the mass murder instruments we have and
thereby make the murder of our children more likely, or to
bring the present insanity to a halt, so that we and our
children have a chance to live in human dignity.
Let us think about what we actually accomplish in our work,
about how it will be used, and whether we are in the service
of life or death.