— The aftermath of the elections in the UK shows that the issues they face are potentially very fragmentary. Even with the Tories’ majority — in a democracy that is not that representative — the UK will be heading to tumultuous times. The main issue is probably Scotland and the virtual wipeout of any party other than the SNP. UK in the next 5 years is going to be a fun political science case to study.
— Still in the UK, and talking about equal rights, equity and all that, we get back to discussing Race and discussing quotas and I feel that we are back to 1960s. This is a very complex problem and I don’t have a solution to it but is with great sorrow that I see that in the 2010s we are still so archaic and full of prejudice in matters of race, job equality, and sexual orientation. Things that are so essential to the condition of being human that I sometimes think that we’ve been invaded by an alien species.
— And finally for some stupid stunt that could be other sad news in the necrology, some Russian freerunner decided to jump from pillar to pillar on the top of a Dubai Hotel. Paid stunt by the HOTEL? Dubai not being in the news enough? In any case, another example of humans doing stupid things for showing off.
Scientists are used to having papers rejected. It comes with the territory, but usually the reviewers had some good reason — and give it to you — to reject the manuscript in the first place. Now this . . .
…and this is a bit hypocritical given the reviewer’s own ideological biases throughout the review, for example: (3/4) pic.twitter.com/aJ8aTIRdYL
Many times the reviewer knows what he’s doing and the comments actually help improve the paper, but sometimes the reviews are just plain incomprehensible and look like they were written by a monkey punching a keyboard while watching themselves on the mirror.
I’ve seen reviewers showing a total lack of understanding about the subjects in hand, being partial, being biased, or worse, not even being able to write a sentence in English. Some reviewers I’ve read, wrote in some language similar to English that until today none of the authors or the editors have been able to understand. A mystery for the science historians of the future. Worse, there are reviewers that protected by anonymity are bluntly rude. Real douchebags. This was another of these cases.
It came from a reviewer saying that the authors should consider finding some male scientist to co-author a paper that was authored only by female scientists. Worse, he went on rambling about the marginal superiority of male scientists. You can get the details of this particular case at RetractionWatch. The tweet above is just an illustration of this reviewer medieval thinking.
A matter of Accountability and Public Peer Review
This leads me to think that we urgently need to end this lack of accountability in the review process. We need to quickly implement Public Peer Review. The idea is that first drafts go to an online repository, like arXiv for example. Reviewers will do their work and publish their reviews as comments in the repository. No anonymity, no protection of douches hiding behind the journal editors. They can still send private emails to the editors, but then what they write publicly has to match what they write privately. Reviews should be public. Authors can improve on their paper and submit a new version. At this point, everyone knows what is going on. Good reviewers will be praised by their scientific acuity and honesty. No one will keep saying things behind a blind knowing they will not become exposed to ridicule. It’s time to expunge those douches by exposing them publicly.
I imagine that some authors, editors and reviewers won’t like this open process. In any case, I imagine that it might be possible to keep the process private until sometime before publication. After publication, this online repository should become available so anyone could trace back the process. I prefer it to stay public always, but I imagine that some authors would prefer to have it closed mainly when collaborating with industry and NDAs were signed.
In any case, I think that the gatekeeper of this should be the author of the paper, not the editor or the reviewer. When submitting a new article the author should be able to keep it private for some time — say 1 month — after the last reviewer submitted his review. This is to give time to the authors to respond to the reviewers comments with a corrected version. After that month passes, the paper and comments should be public. Obviously the authors can go public with the process anytime before that date.
Finally, with all this changes, I also think that all papers should have a byline with the reviewers in the final print. What is the problem of having “This paper was reviewed by X and Y, reviewers comments are available online at HTTP…” in a footnote of the first page? Credit is due to where credit is due. Give reviewers credit for their good work and let the scientific community judge them when they are not good. Also, many other scientists, namely junior scientists starting their careers could learn from good reviewers. They could improve their own reviews by seeing how good scientist were doing theirs.
Being public about the process, is the first step to show the quality of your work. I don’t know why so many are afraid of having their work be publicly scrutinised. In a time where versioning is so simple — git is 10 years old now — where tracing back changes and accountability for actions is so important, I don’t understand how we are still in the feudal ages of protecting reviewers identities. Can it be because most reviewing work IS NOT PAID by journals and they just don’t care to do a quality work? If that is so, why keep this BROKEN SYSTEM?
During 2014 I decided to switch to Colemak keyboard layout. I just want now to give a brief overview of the process, and where I am right now. Here are a few pointers if you want to try it yourself.
Switching keyboard layouts is not easy. Many people give up and stick to qwerty forever. It is dumb but at least not as dumb as the old Portuguese hcesar keyboard layout.
COLEMAK OFFERS THE BEST OF TWO WORLDS, fewer keys change place—for example shortcuts keys like copy and paste stay in the same keyboard location—and more words are typed using the home row with less finger travelling.
PRACTICE. Typing fast is mainly a matter of practice and finger memory. I used Amphetype and Typeracer to improve over time. In Amphetype I downloaded a book from The Gutenberg Project and read it by typing it through.
I MADE SOME CHANGES to the original Colemak keyboard that have nothing to do with letters. I changed the numbers 6–0 to have the symbols of shifted 1–5 !@#$% that are very useful for programming, twitter, emails, latex, etc… and I didn’t want do be using shift to type them. I put 0 to the left of 1 and put 6–9 as shifted 1–4. I now need to press shift to enter those numbers, but I can use the number pad on the right of the keyboard. I AM STILL UNDECIDED ABOUT keeping this half system or to use the french azerty scheme of inverting all the numbers and shifted symbols (ColemaP figure above) — I used Ukelele for remapping Colemak to my version that I call ColemaP
DEFINE the caps lock key as a backspace. Even if you are still using qwerty. The caps lock is useless and having the backspace key on your left pinky is great. It takes some time to get used to but not having to rise and extend your right hand to reach the backspace is a time saver.
REVERTING BACK to qwerty is very easy as you don’t forget it that quickly. You lose some speed on qwerty but nothing that is that problematic. And when you go back you really feel it in your fingers how slow that layout is.
I still get letters in the mail, mostly from cracked-up
men in tiny rooms with factory jobs or no jobs who are
living with whores or no woman at all, no hope, just
booze and madness.
I get most of their letters on lined paper
written with an unsharpened pencil or in ink
in tiny handwritings that slants to the left
and the paper is most often torn
usually halfway up the middle
and they say they like my stuff,
I’ve written from where it’s at,
they recognize it truly, I’ve given them some
chance, some recognition of where it's at.
it’s true, I was there, even worse off than most of them.
but I wonder if they realize where their letter arrives?
well, it's dropped into a box on a wire fence
behind a six-foot hedge and a long driveway
to a two car garage, rose garden, fruit trees,
animals, a beautiful woman, mortgage about half
paid after a years residence, a new car-
two cars,
fireplace and a green rug two-inches deep
with a young boy to write my stuff now,
I keep him in a ten-foot square cage with a
typewriter, feed him whiskey and raw whores,
belt buckle him pretty good three or four times a week.
I’m 60 years old now and the critics say
my stuff is getting better than ever.
— Charles Bukowski
My latest restoration project was the first time I had a Made in Portugal typewriter in my ‘shop’.
This machine is a Brother XL1010 made in Algueirão, Mem Martins, a suburb of Lisbon where the Messa company had its factory. In the ’70s, Messa was building typewriters for several different brands and while the Japanese Brother was moving its production to other products — that were technologically more advanced — they outsourced this low-end machines to other companies so they could complete their lineup of typewriters.
This machine looks exactly like the Messa 2000S This Brother XL1010 was also the smaller brother of the 3 different models, the XL1012 and the XL1016 — the two last digits indicating the width of the platen. I would like also to think that the XL was an attempt to refer to Lisbon as this city acronym is usually LX. Maybe a bit of Japanese humor?
Typewriter Diagnosis
This typewriter presented a few problems, most of them due to the lack of use:
— A couple of stiff keys that were easy to fix with cleaning with WD-40 and some machine oil
— the Y and ! keys getting stuck every time they were pressed. They were rubbing the left guide just before hitting the paper and got stuck. A misalignment quickly fixed it by gentle pressure.
— The margin release key bar was not connected. For some reason, the stop ring in the connector was missing. This was easily fixed with a new stop.
After removing the back cover, I found that the vibration reduction foam had disappeared from the joints and it added another task: to find a replacement.
The remaining disassembling of the external panels is straightforward — Three screws on each side panel, with the middle one also serving as a fitting spring for the top cover. In the back there’s a middle brown service panel that comes out easily — you can remove it either before the side panels or after you remove the side panels — and that is just fixed with a spring mechanism.
There was also a small misalignment of the vertical shift. This is controlled by two side screws on either side of the typewriter under the carriage — move the carriage to the other side when working with them. These screws and bolts are fragile. Loosen the bolt first before trying to turn the screw or you’ll break the screw.
After disassembling, I proceeded to clean and identify the repairs that the typewriter needed.
Cleaning of the typewriter was done with WD40, and although many disagree with its use, I just feel it is very useful to unstick this old machines. If something is starting to get stiff, a bit of WD40 will loosen it and you’ll quickly feel the typewriter coming back to life. After you should clean all excess and you can use sewing oil to lubricate the moving joints.
For the typebars that were misaligned and were getting stuck, force them with your hands. Apply a little pressure and try to see if they keep getting stuck. Work your way applying more strength and testing. Don’t rush. Use your hands to feel the applied force instead of using tools. Start light and increase the force applied to the typebar. This only takes a few seconds to do but if you overdo it you can break them and then there’s no easy repair anymore.
the full photo set of the restoration is on my flickrAfter everything is fixed you just need to close it in the reverse order. The Machine is so simple that you won’t find any problems with it. But if you try this on your own, always take photos of all the process. They will be helpful when you are lost.
Conclusions
The Brother XL1010 is an odd typewriter. It is spartan like it was designed out of a soviet block country. Everything is there just to do its function, not to please the user. The Olivetti typewriters on the other hand were designed to please the user. The joyful of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s is very clear on the Italian machines. This Brother is the opposite. It works, it is industrial, it is NO FUN, all work, and it is loud and clunky — the carriage shift is incomprehensible in a machine of the mid-’70s that isn’t a ultra-portable.If you want a ‘typer’ this can be an interesting typewriter. It is very easy to open and clean and it is easy to service too. But all this comes at a price. All is rough. You work the machine like a you’re driving a pre-WWII car — double clutch included. But there are positives — otherwise you wouldn’t be searching for one to buy — the font is nice and the keys are well designed. That alone is probably the selling point of the machine. Ergonomically they are great, even if they don’t have key levers on par with the ergonomic top — a mechanism that kept the keys level during depression would be great, but that would remove the simplicity of the machine.
In the end, this typewriter is a very interesting machine and it is cheaper than other models although their production run was short. If you are looking for a reliable machine that can type way without problems this is a great catch.
Price for the Brother XL1010 — 40€
It includes a new typewriter ribbon (not the one used in the above photo because that was almost dry as you can see from the typing test)
There was a time when the typewriter ruled the earth and the dinosaurs were roaming into oblivion.
But that was a time when the typewriter liberated writing. It was the easiest and most direct way to put down on paper a structured text that could be given to anyone without being ashamed of the handwriting.
Yes, typewriters limited the typography available to the user, and all they had was monospaced fonts. But they allowed people to register their thoughts in unprecedented ways. They become a tool to organise the mind. The typewriter as a writing instrument became the tool of writers and journalists as much as the fountain pen or the pencil and pad of paper.
Test your writing speed at typeracerIn some cases, this was taken to extremes. Jack Kerouac used a typewriter to draft ‘On the road’ and was known to write at speeds in excess of 100 words per minute—I myself type on computers around 60wpm and find speeds over this to be very difficult in the typewriter—and did it on a scroll roll of continuous paper See picturesduring a three-week stay at a friends’ house.
— Are typewriters dead?
I don’t think so, I’ve managed to acquire a few typewriters recently see pictures on my Flickr account. Two of them are those beautiful Olivetti from the post-WW2 period when the Italian company hired many architects to design their products. They work flawlessly and provide you with a writing tool that makes it easy to draft documents without worrying with editing.
The biggest problem I feel I have when typing directly into the computer is that I’m constantly being distracted by email, by social networks or by some new kitten video from my someone in the virtual extended list of online ‘friends’.
Even when I use focusing tools I use Isolator on the Mac, I end up distracted by the editing possibilities of the tool. You pause for a moment and immediately you start thinking that you could edit the previous paragraph in some way. This editing task is a deterrent to the writing flow. That’s probably why so many participants of the Nanowrimo competition use typewriters. In this way, they don’t stop their thoughts to edit text. They just punch the keys and put their ideas down on paper. Editing is for later. Going back to Kerouac, when he wrote ‘On the road’ he even didn’t use paragraphs breaks Or used them sparsely to save time while going through the 36 meters of the paper.
— So you use typewriters?
I mainly use them as a note taking tool, the same way I use a notebook and a pen. I always have a typewriter on my working desk near my computer and I load a new clean sheet of paper every morning where I just put the date. When I’m reading something—a paper or a book, or even a website that I need to reference—I just make a small note—usually two or three lines of text—and move on doing what I have to do. In this way at the end of the day I collected a lot of notes that are already ‘printed’. I can reread them and organise them better in this way. I don’t need to fight my handwriting and if I want I can give it to someone and be confident they will understand the notes.
— Should you use a typewriter?
Probably no. If you have one, don’t use it, send it to me.
O Blogger anunciou que não quer sexo. Nada de sexo, nudez, ou algo que possa minimamente assemelhar-se a tal. Ponto final, finito. A verdade é que o Blogger há muito que tem feito por se tornar irrelevante e esta é mais uma pequena acha para uma fogueira que já não tem grande chama.
– Se o Blogger se está a tornar irrelevante porque falas dele então? – Foi lá que comecei a blocar, lá pelo ido ano de 2002. O Blogger era ‘a plataforma‘, era fácil de utilizar, e tinha uma comunidade em crescimento.
– Mas entretanto o Google comprou-o ao inventor do Twitter? – Sim, e com isso começaram os problemas. Resolveram mudar o sistema de templates que ninguém entendia e era/é ainda um mistério como funciona. Inventaram um modo beta para a parte de administração que basicamente nunca evoluiu e continua ainda hoje basicamente igual. Começaram os problemas com a lentidão do serviço que fazia com que os sites ficassem algum tempo offline.
– E mudaste para o WordPress? – Sim, em 2006. Houve um momento em que já não era possível continuar a suportar tanto disparate por parte do Google e o WordPress era a plataforma a utilizar para quem queria ter um site self-hosted. Ainda experimentei a versão hosted durante algum tempo, mas o controlo permitido era pouco ou nenhum. A versão self-hosted dá um pouco mais de trabalho mas compensa pelo controlo que se tem. E aliás mais uma vez se prova com este caso do Blogger matar o sexo que quem controla os conteúdos é quem controla os servidores da plataforma e não os autores.
– E no futuro? Continuas no WordPress? – Para já sim. A minha instalação recorre a um plugin desenvolvido por mim para gerar versões estáticas do site de forma a que os requisitos do servidor sejam mínimos. Ainda pensei utilizar coisas como o Jekyll ou Pelican, mas achei melhor aproveitar o WordPress como base. O WordPress continua a ser muito bom e a evoluir ao contrário do que aconteceu com o Blogger ou com o Typead.
– E sugestões hosted? – Nos pacotes tipo SUMO EM PÓ em que é só juntar água, o Tumblr desde que foi comprado pelo Yahoo! cresceu muito e está muito bom. Se tiver que montar um projecto rápido para alguém ou para um grupo, sem ter que andar a gerir nada, é certamente a plataforma que escolho. A Marissa Mayer está a fazer um bom trabalho no Yahoo!, ainda que não seja fácil recuperar o tempo dado de avanço à concorrência.
– E nacionais? – Queres que fale do Sapo Blogs? Funcionam. Experimentei em tempos mas foi um casamento que não funcionou, mas para quem quiser algo em Portugal vale a pena, até porque honestamente não há alternativa em condições em Portugal.
– E agora? – O Blogger está a definhar, os outros vão aproveitar alguma migração de utilizadores. Mas o que isto mostra é QUEM NÃO CONTROLA O SERVIDOR NÃO CONTROLA OS CONTEÚDOS.
Atravessar o centro de Lisboa de carro é um pesadelo. De tempo perdido, de poluição sónica e poluição atmosférica (CO2, CO, NOx, etc… ). E o pior é que as ligações Rotunda – Praça do Comércio não passam de ligações de passagem. É como despejar um camião do lixo na porta do melhor restaurante da cidade e esperar que os clientes achem … “etnográfico” <sic?>.
Zona baixa de Lisboa impede circulação a veículos automóveis mais antigos entre as 7h e as 21h. Área de circulação para carros anteriores a 1996 será ainda mais restrita.
Sim é muito interessante que se restrinja a idade dos carros ao centro, mas isso não acaba com a circulação dos mesmos, não cria oportunidades de criar um centro vocacionado para o peão, para quem realmente precisa de ir à baixa em vez de apenas passar por lá.
Porque não planear os centros das nossas cidades verdadeiramente para o século XXI? Porquê continuar a ter um Rossio como uma grande rotunda para carros que vão e vêm. A baixa é já servida pelo metro, que devia ser a porta de acesso a esta zona da cidade. Talvez um dia. Talvez os nossos URBAN PLANNERS possam começar a pensar fora do casulos que todas as manhãs os levam a atravessar a cidade em direcção às suas repartições, aos seus cubículos, e à sua falta de imaginação para re-imaginar a cidade.
Urban planners are finally recognizing that streets should be designed for people, not careening hunks of deadly metal.
O Blogger anunciou que não quer sexo. Nada de sexo, nudez, ou algo que possa minimamente assemelhar-se a tal. Ponto final, finito. A verdade é que o Blogger há muito que tem feito por se tornar irrelevante e esta é mais uma pequena acha para uma fogueira que já não tem grande chama.
