Typebar's illustrating picture is not suited to the evidence for David's statements on two points.

This picture is front-strike machine's and staged event 'cause of too much tangles. Jamming typebars' picture should be on up-strike-machine's and during actual operation. It's because this picture should illustrate David's statements. The type-writing machine at prototype era, it should have up-strike mechanism. --Raycy (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
David wrote new doc that is David(2000)[1], and I haven't read though. It should be checked because his "jamming problems led to QWERTY" theory was on suspicion for a while.--Raycy (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Associate Professor Koichi Yasuoka[2] points out two facts that should be proven ,

  1. The existence of the nuisance of type-bar collisions [3]
  2. Strong regulation between keys' layout and type-bars' arrangement [4]

,during the prototype-machine era.--Raycy (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yasuoka also says up-strike machine's type-bar should never been called as 'arm'. I gess it might be called as 'arm'.--Raycy (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Path dependence

edit

David said path dependence with showing QWERTY as the evidence.
It is like the "jubaku" ; spelled binding phenomena ;phenomena spell bound with; .

拘束条件 condition of constraint // restraint condition

binding on physics, binding on code table structure
呪縛-THE JUBAKUHaunted Forest (film)

  1. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%91%AA%E7%B8%9B
  2. http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E5%91%AA%E7%B8%9B/UTF-8/

紙テープの呪縛 paper tape(Yasuoka)
テレタイプの呪い teletype(Yasuoka), 5-bit rellay bindng
Early in the QWERTY's borning , there were the results of traveling typebars around on the typebasket , every bar wired or linked to the each key with. Surviving the vital motion of typebars to the last, along or on the vertical plane much freely.(Raycy)--Raycy (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  1. ^ David, Paul A. (2000), "Path dependence, its critics and the quest for ‘historical economics’", in P. Garrouste and S. Ioannides (eds), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, England.
  2. ^ http://www.blogger.com/profile/12846940796427466327
  3. ^ Current(1949)footnote26
  4. ^ Current(1949)footnote22

See also

edit

For explaining David's QWERTY statement is important

edit

The typebararticle's ballance paying for David's is good, I agree. If affirm or not, David's idea should be explaned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raycy (talkcontribs) 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply