Occasionally, I'll stumble across another editorial debating the Windows XP vs Windows 7 supremacy issue. It took me a while, but I think I'm seeing a pattern here...
It's a switchover in computing from needing to have at least a little bit of technical knowledge, to no knowledge being required. I keep seeing all these articles where the Windows 7 user is describing using it to be so simple: All you need do is type part of the word into the search box! It will find it for you, by winnowing the list as you type, getting you closer and closer to your goal! Its easy! You don't have to know how to do anything at all, except maybe type!
Here we have an OS that is designed to be operated that way the average consumer is already used to... By having to search for how to do something, because they have no idea how to do it any other way. So let's just make the whole search process the standard operating procedure for the OS. Need to do something? All you have to do is use search!
And that's where the problem is. Again, where does THAT road lead to? (Here's a clue.. it's not Rome.) Seriously though..you're making me sick with all the proclaiming as to the greatness of the Search button.
It would be like buying a new house, and having someone else put everything where they wanted it, and then hire a maid-nanny-butler to do EVERYTHING for you. Oh Jeeves, could you lead me to the restroom? And then find me the sink? And then a towel? (This is so easy!)
I understand why the average consumer wants things this way. They can't help themselves. Why bother to learn how to do something, when they can just make it simpler? Why would they expect me to know something like this?
At this point, I'm seeing an image in my head from one of my daughters movies, WALL-E, of those crowds of platformed people with everything done for them, and no idea how to do anything at all. That probably would have started with small steps like this.
Remember that road I was joking about?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Education
I see a trend developing in education. I see the slow bleeding demise of specialization, and the rise of general-ism. No more shall people excel at any given field of endeavor.. instead, all shall muddle through, pushing the race closer and closer to being mindless drones with every generation. Eventually, there will be no job titles, as everyone will do pretty much the same things. Does this sound wonderful to you? If your answer was yes, please go away and die somewhere. Perhaps you could poke your head into a hive, and have a look at how drone life goes.
To approach this seriously, I see schools and universities heading in the same direction. There seems to be a social movement towards "broadening" educational fields. The individuals/panels/boards/etc in charge of designing educational programs want to pack more and more into a degree. There is a phenomenon called "feature creep" that seems to be applying to education these days. Some fellow on a board somewhere thinks it would be nice if everyone learns another language, because when he was in college he liked studying French, or whatever. Then some other person on another board thinks everyone should be more aware of the ethnic issues involved in whatever, where ever they were when they studied it.
So now we have 2 courses that everyone is required to take, whether it would be useful to them or not. But hey, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe, just maybe, Veterinarian John looks to what he learned about in "Folklore and Sexuality" to get him through the day, and without it he just couldn't help all those animals.
There are requirements these days for things that I seem to remember being elective type courses. I took this straight from the website of a local university:
"Group Requirements
To approach this seriously, I see schools and universities heading in the same direction. There seems to be a social movement towards "broadening" educational fields. The individuals/panels/boards/etc in charge of designing educational programs want to pack more and more into a degree. There is a phenomenon called "feature creep" that seems to be applying to education these days. Some fellow on a board somewhere thinks it would be nice if everyone learns another language, because when he was in college he liked studying French, or whatever. Then some other person on another board thinks everyone should be more aware of the ethnic issues involved in whatever, where ever they were when they studied it.
So now we have 2 courses that everyone is required to take, whether it would be useful to them or not. But hey, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe, just maybe, Veterinarian John looks to what he learned about in "Folklore and Sexuality" to get him through the day, and without it he just couldn't help all those animals.
There are requirements these days for things that I seem to remember being elective type courses. I took this straight from the website of a local university:
"Group Requirements
To promote educational breadth, bachelor’s degree candidates are required to complete work in each of three groups representing comprehensive fields of knowledge: arts and letters, social science, and science. Approved group-satisfying courses must be at least 3 credits each."
and:
"Multicultural Requirement
The purpose of the multicultural requirement is to introduce students to the richness of human diversity and to the opportunities and challenges of life in a multicultural society.
Bachelor’s degree candidates must complete one course in two of the following categories: A: American Cultures; B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance; C: International Cultures. A minimum of 6 credits in approved courses must be earned."
And from what I see, if I were a CS major, I might think that I could use the "science" section of the group requirements to keep my studies related to my field, but alas, probably not. Odds are, I'm already either enrolled in the class, taking a prerequisite class, or just waiting out the time until the class is available. I've had a look, for example, at the "group" requirement satisfying CS classes. They all pretty much look like "intro" type courses. A humanities major might find them interesting though. Odds are, anyone actually pursuing a CIS degree is going to nap through them out of sheer boredom.
By now, I hope you have gotten the point.
Why do this? Do we want to loose all the genius in every field? What exactly was wrong with that guy/girl who just did his/her thing? Must we all be more culturally diverse, knowledgeable about Gender and Sexuality in Traditional Chinese Literature, etc?
What, we're including classes like these so that people to have something to chat about while standing near the water cooler?
Perhaps we should try this with professional athletes. The athletes should have to pick a second sport during college. Those really talented basketballers might have their careers prematurely ended when they get bones broken on the football field though. Would this make sense? No. It would not. Yes, horribly exaggerated example, but hey..it's my blog. I hereby grant myself the right to use screamingly exaggerated and obvious examples.
I constantly see people in various fields that really do NOT know what they should, considering the education that they have. Do we really want more people who don't have a clue how to do what they DO? Ok, that might be a bit harsh, but why are we aiming for "jack-of-all-trade" type of education? Don't get me wrong, those type are extremely useful in ways, but if everyone is like that, we've lost something. We've lost the experts.
That road looks dark. And we all know what happens in the dark.
You get eaten by a grue.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Vegetarianism..
In essence, I see vegetarians as nice, nature loving people. People who seriously fail to comprehend and understand what "nature" is all about. And who also choose to blindly disregard what "nature" has designed the primate known as H. Sapien to do. How many of you really believe that animals don't eat each other out there in the deep forest? (Or, for that matter, in your backyard)
Is there ANY verifiable proof that a vegetarian diet is healthier in ANY way for a human being? Or could it perhaps be the other things that the people likely to be vegetarians ALSO do? Like exercising, take vitamins, paying more attention to their health in general? You know..the vegetarian LIFESTYLE.
There are a whole pile of myths regarding vegetarianism, but so far I have seen not even the smallest shred of evidence to support the claims made by vegetarians.
Is it a "number-of-deaths-caused-by-my-diet"/ "Least Harm Principle" thing? If so, I'm not going to debate THAT with you. Obviously you are a paragon of nobility,virtue, and self-sacrificing moral standards. Good for you. Pass me your steak before you go lay in the ditch to be worm and bug food. This is most likely tied in to a religious belief, and in general, religion cannot be reasoned with. Religion, at its base, is the belief in something that no person has ever had any evidence of. But that is a topic for another day.
Look at it from a design standpoint:
1.Teeth. We have the teeth that we have because we NEED them. We have flat grinding type teeth, which are good for grinding plant matter to shreds. We also have sharp cutting teeth, which are good for cutting and ripping MEAT. Since BOTH types of teeth are found within the human mouth, it seems rather obvious that human beings eat both plants AND animals.
2. Eyes. Where are our eyes? Centered, and forward focusing. Look at animals in the wild..which ones have eyes that are centered and forward focusing? Predators and Omnivores. Herbivores more often have eyes more widely spaced, off to the sides where they can watch for the predators. Like the way a cow will keep an eye on the humans walking through the field the cow is in. That cow knows what vegans refuse to see.
If we intentionally disregard what nature has designed us for, via the process of evolution, we create risk for ourselves. At the extreme end, we risk being replaced by a species more suited to its place in the food chain. At the mild end, we risk causing ourselves harm and illness.
Is there ANY verifiable proof that a vegetarian diet is healthier in ANY way for a human being? Or could it perhaps be the other things that the people likely to be vegetarians ALSO do? Like exercising, take vitamins, paying more attention to their health in general? You know..the vegetarian LIFESTYLE.
There are a whole pile of myths regarding vegetarianism, but so far I have seen not even the smallest shred of evidence to support the claims made by vegetarians.
Is it a "number-of-deaths-caused-by-my-diet"/ "Least Harm Principle" thing? If so, I'm not going to debate THAT with you. Obviously you are a paragon of nobility,virtue, and self-sacrificing moral standards. Good for you. Pass me your steak before you go lay in the ditch to be worm and bug food. This is most likely tied in to a religious belief, and in general, religion cannot be reasoned with. Religion, at its base, is the belief in something that no person has ever had any evidence of. But that is a topic for another day.
Look at it from a design standpoint:
1.Teeth. We have the teeth that we have because we NEED them. We have flat grinding type teeth, which are good for grinding plant matter to shreds. We also have sharp cutting teeth, which are good for cutting and ripping MEAT. Since BOTH types of teeth are found within the human mouth, it seems rather obvious that human beings eat both plants AND animals.
2. Eyes. Where are our eyes? Centered, and forward focusing. Look at animals in the wild..which ones have eyes that are centered and forward focusing? Predators and Omnivores. Herbivores more often have eyes more widely spaced, off to the sides where they can watch for the predators. Like the way a cow will keep an eye on the humans walking through the field the cow is in. That cow knows what vegans refuse to see.
If we intentionally disregard what nature has designed us for, via the process of evolution, we create risk for ourselves. At the extreme end, we risk being replaced by a species more suited to its place in the food chain. At the mild end, we risk causing ourselves harm and illness.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Mac "trend"and where it might be going.
As I see it, most likely right off the cliff edge. Macs tumbling through the air, headed for a terminal stop at the bottom. A pretty image, yes?
Let's have a look at what the Mac computing culture has to offer:
1. Style.
2. Ease of use. The Mac concept is one of simplicity. Nothing complicated, nothing difficult to understand, no techno babble. It just works.
3. Reliable, and virus free.
Now, Let's examine each of those a bit more closely:
1. Style. About this, I would have to agree with Apple. Macs ARE stylish, pretty, and sleek looking. Congratulations Apple, you have some excellent graphic/product design people.
2. Ease of use. Yes, Macs in general are easy to use. In general. For anything other than the standard usage though, you will might need to take that MacBook down to the MacStore, and have the MacMan behind the MacCounter set it up for you. For a MacFee. Because you most likely would not, or could not learn how to do it yourself. You know..those tricky things, like moving a file from one Mac to another.. *chuckle*
3. Reliable and virus free. Hmm. Well, that IS what they say. Sort of. Macs don't have the whole blue screen of death thing that PCs can have. To quote: "This means that a Mac rarely freezes or crashes. Occasionally an application might quit, but it won’t affect the rest of your system. And Mac OS X resists most viruses" Lets look at a few of those qualifiers..."rarely"and "most"
These mean, "sometimes", and "not all".
To quote: "a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs" Well, how nice for the Mac. My PC is also 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack Macs. (My goldfish is also 100 percent safe from viruses that might infect my lizard.) What they are NOT saying is that there are viruses out there that target Macs, and that they have been around since about '05 or '06. The only thing protecting the Mac users is the fact that most of the "hacker" crowd, the ones writing the viruses, trojans, etc, do NOT use Macs. The number, however, is growing larger.
So Mac users have a bright and glorious future ahead of them, struggling with viruses, trojans, backdoors, keyloggers, spyware,adware, malware, etc etc with not even the slightest clue what to do about them. From the view of the company producing Macs, this is probably a good thing, as many of the Mac users, when infected with a virus or such that affects how their Mac runs, will simply toss it, and purchase a new one. Excellent for sales figures!
So what you have is a rather expensive laptop that was designed for the lowest common denominator intelligence-wise, that CAN get viruses, and DOES freeze and crash sometimes. But lets not forget, it IS sleek and pretty. It will look quite nice on your coffee table. Queu "Borat" type voice here.. "Oh yes, Quite nice." (That sort of movie is a rant for a whole other day though)
I recently "overheard" a comment on a tech forum from a Mac user.. He said that, in general, if a product does not work perfectly right "out of the box" without any setting up, or customization, he and his friends will usually return it, and get something that does. He was discussing a wireless router. This is the type of hardware that you SHOULD spend at least a few moments setting up, unless of course, you LIKE having everyone on the block using your wireless signal to connect to the net, etc etc.
Hopefully, you get the point by now.
Do I sound angry or bitter about Macs? I don't mean to, as I don't really have anything against them personally. I just dislike the concept of a simplified computer. Computers are not supposed to be simple. If we take THAT concept a bit further, perhaps the computer should have only one key, or button. Wouldn't want to make it TOO difficult to use. Oh, and that internet thingie? That thingie made of pipes? Maybe that thingie should only have one web site. Wouldn't want to make the internet thingie too complicated...
My anger and bitterness are more properly directed towards the trend of simplicity and stupidity that seems to be gaining strength and popularity with each new generation since the 90's or so. I suppose what this boils down to is this:
Design for stupidity, and that's exactly what you will get.
Darwinism in action, people.
Let's have a look at what the Mac computing culture has to offer:
1. Style.
2. Ease of use. The Mac concept is one of simplicity. Nothing complicated, nothing difficult to understand, no techno babble. It just works.
3. Reliable, and virus free.
Now, Let's examine each of those a bit more closely:
1. Style. About this, I would have to agree with Apple. Macs ARE stylish, pretty, and sleek looking. Congratulations Apple, you have some excellent graphic/product design people.
2. Ease of use. Yes, Macs in general are easy to use. In general. For anything other than the standard usage though, you will might need to take that MacBook down to the MacStore, and have the MacMan behind the MacCounter set it up for you. For a MacFee. Because you most likely would not, or could not learn how to do it yourself. You know..those tricky things, like moving a file from one Mac to another.. *chuckle*
3. Reliable and virus free. Hmm. Well, that IS what they say. Sort of. Macs don't have the whole blue screen of death thing that PCs can have. To quote: "This means that a Mac rarely freezes or crashes. Occasionally an application might quit, but it won’t affect the rest of your system. And Mac OS X resists most viruses" Lets look at a few of those qualifiers..."rarely"and "most"
These mean, "sometimes", and "not all".
To quote: "a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs" Well, how nice for the Mac. My PC is also 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack Macs. (My goldfish is also 100 percent safe from viruses that might infect my lizard.) What they are NOT saying is that there are viruses out there that target Macs, and that they have been around since about '05 or '06. The only thing protecting the Mac users is the fact that most of the "hacker" crowd, the ones writing the viruses, trojans, etc, do NOT use Macs. The number, however, is growing larger.
So Mac users have a bright and glorious future ahead of them, struggling with viruses, trojans, backdoors, keyloggers, spyware,adware, malware, etc etc with not even the slightest clue what to do about them. From the view of the company producing Macs, this is probably a good thing, as many of the Mac users, when infected with a virus or such that affects how their Mac runs, will simply toss it, and purchase a new one. Excellent for sales figures!
So what you have is a rather expensive laptop that was designed for the lowest common denominator intelligence-wise, that CAN get viruses, and DOES freeze and crash sometimes. But lets not forget, it IS sleek and pretty. It will look quite nice on your coffee table. Queu "Borat" type voice here.. "Oh yes, Quite nice." (That sort of movie is a rant for a whole other day though)
I recently "overheard" a comment on a tech forum from a Mac user.. He said that, in general, if a product does not work perfectly right "out of the box" without any setting up, or customization, he and his friends will usually return it, and get something that does. He was discussing a wireless router. This is the type of hardware that you SHOULD spend at least a few moments setting up, unless of course, you LIKE having everyone on the block using your wireless signal to connect to the net, etc etc.
Hopefully, you get the point by now.
Do I sound angry or bitter about Macs? I don't mean to, as I don't really have anything against them personally. I just dislike the concept of a simplified computer. Computers are not supposed to be simple. If we take THAT concept a bit further, perhaps the computer should have only one key, or button. Wouldn't want to make it TOO difficult to use. Oh, and that internet thingie? That thingie made of pipes? Maybe that thingie should only have one web site. Wouldn't want to make the internet thingie too complicated...
My anger and bitterness are more properly directed towards the trend of simplicity and stupidity that seems to be gaining strength and popularity with each new generation since the 90's or so. I suppose what this boils down to is this:
Design for stupidity, and that's exactly what you will get.
Darwinism in action, people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
