11 Feb
2020
11 Feb
'20
11:18 p.m.
Sorry to top-post...
To me, the biggest handicap to getting anything done, code-wise,
command-line-wise, basically anything, is the keyboard/mouse.
I use keyboard shortcuts as much as possible, being an old LA36 kind
guy, but I would love to have something that just by looking at text, be
able to highlight, copy/cut/paste, etc.
Even action buttons. It would be great to look at the "Send" button in
Thunderbird and press a key on the mouse or keyboard (or some other
eye-contact type signal) and "do" it.
Was anything ever done in terms of sub-vocalization? Lots of stories in
Sci-Fi about that, nothing ever came out of it, I don't think.
On 2/11/2020 12:05 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Rob Pike wrote in
<CAKzdPgz6qPuqOfTe4eLqmM4f4RXTxqWRO-3NLHTaMxJg7mT-Nw(a)mail.gmail.com>:
|My general mood about the current standard way of nerd working is how \
|unimaginative and old-fashioned it feels. There are countless ways \
|we could be interacting with our terminals, editors, and shells
|while we program, but for various sociological and historical reasons \
|we're pretty much using one from decades ago. I'm sure it's productive
\
|for almost everyone, but it seems dull to me. We could be
|doing something much more dynamic. I mean, xterm is hardly more sophisti\
|cated than the lame terminal code that ran in mpx (ca. 1982), other \
|than colors and cursor addressing, which date from the 1960s
|via early PCs. IDEs don't sing to me, although they are powerful, because \
|they don't integrate well with the environment, only with the language. \
|And they are just lots of features, not a coherent
|vision. No model to speak of.
|
|Compare what happened with our shell windows with what happened with \
|our "smart" phones in the last 20 years and you'll get some inkling \
|of what I think we're missing. It's not that we should program the
|way we use iPhones, but that there are fields where user interface \
|work has made a real different recently. Not so in programming, though. \
|We're missing out.
I cannot imagine any other real step forward but control-by-
thought, aka brain computer interfaces. (I personally am even
convinced we will get the brain implant -- ever since i got all
those B and C Hollywood movies from the 50s wrong, back when i was
a kid. It is convincing still, automatic emergency calls, health
record and cases of incompatibility at hand when needed, and not
to talk about the hints it will give the law enforcement side of
the road.)
Just last year i have seen a report on the current stage of
affairs, Carnegie-Mellon and Minnesota Universities seem to have
build a non-invasively controlled robotic arm, pretty high
precision.
"Wir haben erhebliche Fortschritte im Bereich
Robotervorrichtungen mit Gedankensteuerung über Gehirnimplantate
gemacht.
We have made substantial progress in the region of
thought-controlled robotic devices via implants.
Das ist hervorragende Forschungsarbeit", sagt He.
"That is superb research work", says He [Professor Bin He,
Carnegie-Mellon].
"Nichtinvasiv ist jedoch unser ultimatives Ziel.
Fortschritte in der neuronalen Dekodierung und der praktischen
Auswirkungen auf die mögliche Entwicklung nichtinvasiver
Nutzbarkeit nichtinvasiver Roboterarmsteuerung werden erhebliche
Neurorobotik haben."
"Albeit non-invasive is our ultimate goal.
Progress in neuronal decoding, and the practical usability of
non-invasive control of robotic arms will have substantial
effect on the possible development of non-invasive
neuro-robotics."
|But I'm a grumpy old man and getting far off topic. Warren should cry, \
|"enough!".
I personally would love it, if it where only in the hands of
empathic beings, capable of reflection. Yet it is us. ^_^
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)