> I call your bluff. WHAT groups are allowed to > hold RELIGIOUS meetings in PUBLIC school > buildings, while Christians cannot? Name some.
My bluff? I don't have the case notes in front of me here at work. If the issue's important to you, find the information yourself, for now. You have my email address, if there's a burning need. I'll get back to you tonight, if I can. Other than that, sorry.
I _do_ have some notes here on a "Chandler v. James" case in Alabama, wherein a federal court has banned all manner of student-initiated religious activities...
> Yes, this is called CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PUBLIC > school teachers are agents of the state.
They're what? I thought they were employees, private citizens on the payroll of a local government. Now they're "agents"? No, you're mistaken.
> The state is, by mandate of the Constitution, > Areligious...religiously neutral. It would be a > conflict of interest for a teacher to do so.
This is plainly nonsense. If the State is "areligious", that means that it _has no interest_. Therefore, there can be no conflict of interest, because there is no prior interest with which to have conflict.
What I think you mean to say is that it would cause the appearance of improprietry precisely because the State can have no interest in religion.
If that's your view, you're wrong anyway: the State has demonstrated a compelling interest in providing educational services, and that must include religion, at least tangentially, because religion is an integral facet of history.
You see the bind you're in. I hope. The only way out is to give religion an academic look and leave preferential treatment to individuals (including teachers outside of their official capacities). I suppose the government could simply walk away from its public education debacle, but that's too much to hope for.
> We weren't forced to pray or BELIEVE in its > ideology. That is where your argument has a > flaw.
I don't see how _anyone_ can be forced to either pray or believe, so I'm interested to know how that can be the flaw in my argument. That would be a neat trick, if you could explain it.
> which INCLUDES freedom FROM religious practice
How did you think you could sneak that by? Where is it written that freedom of religion means freedom from hearing people pray around you? What's wrong with you that you can't stand the free exercise of other people's religions?
After attempting to paint Christians as intolerant, you come up with _this_ crap?
> Vague though this principle may be, it is still > clearly a *moral principle*.
No, it's a political principle. Game over, thanks for playing.
It is the mistaken notion of outsiders to Libertarianism that Libertarians believe in being fundamentally, morally agnostic. That's far from the truth; many Libertarians hold fervent moral beliefs and hold themselves to the strictest, most Spartan disciplines.
In fact, the two go hand-in-hand. Libertarians by-and-large have great respect for other people because they, themselves, have a strong sense of virtue. If Libertarians were senseless, immoral pigs, I doubt we would care much for the high-minded notions of individual respect and friendly persuasion.
Libertarianism is the belief that government should be established according to Rule of Law, and that its operation should never be considered superior to the free, unhindered actions and associations of people. It depends most upon the establishment of a firm and just Law, and the creation of the United States Constitution marks the first coherent time that such a thing had ever been done.
Today Libertarianism opposes the criminalization of drugs, prostitution, and adultery, for instance. Some suppose, as a result, that Libertarians believe such things are _morally acceptable_ as a matter of policy. In fact, most of us find such things morally _repugnant_. However, we feel that any time government power is employed to "fix" the problems caused, things get _worse_, not better.
This is another reason that Libertarians are often virtuous: lacking belief in the salvific power of Government, they turn to moral government in Law, self-restraint, and belief in God.
It's a source of shame to see that many Christians believe their calling to be something akin to the creation of a theocracy. Others believe, in Anabaptist fashion, that the only proper recourse is to completely withdraw from society and to hurl insults from afar. Some, amazingly enough, manage to work for both at the same time.
The truth is that Christians are called to be the Salt of the Earth. It is the Spirit of God that changes hearts, not silly, stupid laws from the Presidential bully pulpit. When the body of Christ realizes that war, legislation, and separatism are basically losing the struggle, perhaps they'll begin to have a real impact on the lives of real people.
> Nonsense. Schools don't forbid > before/after-school private prayer groups, > praying at lunches, etc.
Many schools _do_ forbid such things, and their actions are being upheld in court. Moreover, they forbid religious meetings in public school buildings after school hours, while other groups are allowed to do so, denying those groups equal access to public resources. And teachers are forbidden to pray with students privately, even when the student expresses a wish for such activity.
The spirit of the Church/state separation doctrine would have everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law; what's happened instead is that Christians are treated as second-class citizens.
> What they forbid is a school policy setting > aside classroom time for "prayer time".
I spent years in a Jesuit school, wherein classroom time was set aside for a prayer every morning. I think you mean "public school policy"; you would do well to note that it is in public schools, specifically, that Christians are denied their faith in a matter as harmless as prayer.
Is it illegal to spend "classroom time" on the spiritual teachings of Ghandi and Maya Angelou? Are the words of _Reverend_ Martin Luther King, Jr., in his _I Have A Dream_ speech, forbidden from the halls of public schools?
Of course not. They are curriculum, as must be a discussion of the Christian roots of many in this country. I'd have no objection to a passionless discourse on the many religions that constitute America's makeup. It would be of great satisfaction to me to learn some Islamic history alongside Confucianism; in fact, I did hear quite a lot of it while I went to public schools (though I might wish for more, centered as the public schools are on Western European history).
But you can't say that denying Christian freedoms once they walk into a public building is "fair treatment".
I say it merely for the sake of argument. I don't ask for _fair_ from you, or anyone else, honestly. If I depended upon _fair_ from the likes of my peers I think I would be greatly disappointed.
> You're as much of an idiot on/. as you are on > Usenet, Peck. Too bad I don't have my killfile > here.
I won't guess who this might be, and I won't remind you of your self-respect when you post here, anonymously. I simply ask you to state your name so that you can look me in the face.
> there, you have made a judgement about his state > of mind, even his very well being simply > because he freely spoke his mind. You assume to > much and judged his character...
I'm free to make judgments about a man's words and actions. I never made a judgment about his character, although you assume too much, yourself, if you assume that I'd be wrong to do so. Judging character by words and actions is an important part of maturity, and gentle discernment is a great virtue. What company do _you_ keep?
> As an agnostic, and an American I find this > religious bombardment offensive.
I by "religious bombardment" you mean the protestations of Christians whose lawful ability to speak prayer or assemble peacefully in public schools is being abrogated, I don't know why you're complaining. If your aim is to wipe out mainstream lawful acknowledgement of Christian faith, you're winning.
Then again:
> Ever heard of the seperation of church and > state.
Yes, separation of _church_ and state. Take a careful look at those words. Reread your history lessons. The Founders opposed religious tyranny on the basis of an established church within the government. They opposed theocracy.
What you hang upon those words, instead, is your own brand of religious tyranny. It's not hard to guess why.
Since you insist on attacking this brave poster as a proxy for his religion, I can't offer an argument in kind. Odd that you challenge his character when your bitter (and profane) resentment toward all things sacred would appear to be eating you alive.
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack. He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking. He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation!
And claim it, we do. To the original poster, God bless.
I'm really amazed at how many of these complaints I can answer straight from Mike Gancarz book, _The UNIX Philosophy_. According to Gancarz, you write the 90% solution, which means that your program is correct for 90% of your audience. If the missing ten percent cannot cope with its issues, it can write its own program.
Another Garcarz tenet: don't reinvent the wheel. Given the advent of the Open Source movement, if the "incorrect" program is Open Source, it is possible to take that code and simply modify it to reflect "correct" behavior. Perhaps modifying the program to suit the 10%'s needs only requires 10% of the original effort...
...which would make this process simple, efficient, consistent, and _correct_. Rather tidy.
> Why do you bother developing? The people who use > your programs are only going to be experiencing > a "canned interactive slideshow"!
No, not my users.
> Besides, if they really wanted to do something, > they'd write the program themselves in so > cryptic a manner that it would be unusable to > anyone but them.:P
No, it would be effective for them to use. Isn't that the point?
Correctness is flexible. It applies when there is some question of conformance. For instance, it is inaccurate to say that "throwing a volume away" is equivalent to ejecting it, but that is exactly the metaphor presented on the MacOS desktop, for the sake of consistently using that "throw away" gesture.
In this case it is _incorrect_ but consistent. Likewise, it is _incorrect_ to allow the user to "throw away" fixed volumes, but the action is allowed anyway (with a failure message). In this manner, fixed volume treatment in the UI is consistent with removable volumes, but plainly incorrect.
> What is efficient UI?
Efficiency measures the overall time and effort required for task completion, as a function of task significance. The MacOS achieves an illusion of efficiency only by keeping task significance very low. Therefore, the MacOS user may say "I move files so quickly!" but a command-line pro may know that in twice as much time he performed comprehensive FS logic of much greater significance than to copy or move several files.
> Why can't you (through good engineering) have > all of these virtues?
You can strive for all of them, but only if you are willing to juggle your priorities carefully. Strict adherence to certain priorities (like user-friendliness) without regard for others (task significance) leads to an wildly unbalanced interface like that found in the MacOS.
> Therefore, interfaces that facilitate (that > means make easy)
This is misleading. Facilitate means "help bring about". If an interface makes comprehension simpler to achieve but only at the cost of effectiveness, have you really achieved anything of value?
> The ONLY THING this company has is a KILLER > user interface. That's the ONLY way the company > has stayed afloat.
I used to agree, but increased exposure to the rest of the world and considerable expenditure of thought have drastically changed my opinion. The MacOS has an interface that is very pleasant for many people to use; that it is pleasant has no bearing on its effectiveness.
Along the way, I came to the realization that MacOS is no longer even pleasant for me to use! I lost my respect for both its utility and its aesthetics. At this point I think it might the worst overall UI in widespread use today.
> If you have better articles, I'd love to read > them.
I'm not expert, but I've got plenty of opinions. I'll tell you what: my email address is mjpeck@nstar.net. If you email me with your own address, I'll give you an earful on what I think would be a good graphical interface. I'm actually working on such a project, and I'd be grateful for feedback, and an ear to just hear out my reasoning.
They're not necessarily in conflict. However, when they are, your UI always sacrifices correctness for consistency and efficiency for simplicity.
As for niche success, what do I care? Isn't the quality of an interface of primary import? That's what you Mac people were telling us throughout all of Apple's lean years... now that things look better, you can afford the luxury of honesty?
Well, I guess I was wrong; you'll sacrifice consistency for _some_ things, I suppose.
> Note that some of us consider "your" (making a gross > overgeneralization) brand of fragmented, inconsistent, willy-nilly "open" user interface to be the > worst combination of attributes ever expressed on a bitmap display.
Of course you do. You measure everything by an opposite standard: you value consistency over correctness, and you value simplicity over efficiency.
Quite literally, you prefer what is "easy" (consistently simple) over what is "effective" (efficient and correct).
Weaved in, throughout, this philosophy contains self-aggrandizing notions like superior aesthetics, etc., and some other laughable ideas, but the main current is that no compromise is too severe, as long as it is made in the name of those two sacred attributes: simplicity and consistency.
> Reliable, user-friendly tools are what computers > are SUPPOSED to be.
Like hell they are. Computers are "SUPPOSED" to perform massive logical functions in a reasonably finite period of time. Nowadays a massive portion of that logical functionality is spent actively destroying the user's experience: by creating a captive interface that restricts efficiency.
These days people _think_ they're "using a computer". In reality, they're experiencing little more than a canned, interactive slideshow. They stare stupidly at it, and because SO LITTLE effort is expected of them, they are pleased. Of COURSE they like it! Why not just put them in front of a TV and tell them they're doing "work"? Wouldn't _anybody_ like to be told such a thing?
It's all done in the name of "user-friendliness", of course, just as you've justified it. I'm just calling a spade a spade; it's none of my business how you choose to use your computer.
> Using a Mac can clue you, as a programmer, > into some good User Interface ideas.
Ah, right. Like the idea that using a menu should block every running task. Like the idea that moving files to and from multiple volumes should require three and four steps to accomplish. Like the idea that windows should be resizeable from exactly one corner. Like the idea that using one window from one process should require raising _EVERY_ window owned by that process. Like the idea that mouse and keyboard bindings are hardcoded values in the environment.
Excuse, but I don't need any of those clues. In fact I'm doing my best to ensure that I never go anywhere near that kind of trash.
How can I be polite about this? No offense, but some of us consider your brand of captive user interface to be just about the worst combination of attributes ever expressed on a bitmap display.
This is way too funny. I care enough about design to "optimize Perl code", but since I don't appreciate translucent orange plastic, I obviously have no taste.
That's such a brilliant coup; it's like the guy in a clown suit strutting around like a high-fashion snob, and getting away with it. I mean, these are people who would undoubtedly appreciate the "taste" and "design" of pink toenail polish with sparkles, and they're looking down their long noses at people who see beauty in good engineering and hard work, but don't care about superficiality.
Apple must truly be the poster child of this new generation of idiots.
> You'll learn a lot about how computers ought to > work.
No, you won't. You'll learn to form a lot of opinions about "The Way Things Ought To Be", but you won't learn a damned thing about computers.
You might as well be using a console, plugging in various cartridges: "here's Photoshop, here's SmoochyGoo, here's BaubleBlast!, here's Ye_Olde_PC_Game_Port. I don't really do _anything_ with the OS, or the API, or the shell. I just run programs, and that's the way it _ought_ to be!"
Go right ahead. And smoke some crack while you're at it, that'll fit right in with the whole "entertain-me" mentality.
Actually, the speed difference is going to be apparent from more than just the video card specs. It's got a pig of a system bus (66 MHz), a relatively small L2 cache, and a tiny amount of physical memory.
That disk isn't going to be winning any races, either...
ISPs provide more than just IP addresses. They provide customer support, primarily (a critical job). They also provide a newsfeed, indirectly. They provide email services, a point of accountability, filtration services (a large and growing industry), and a billing contact.
ISPs _are_ the last-mile. They are the reason you don't have to call the phone company and wade through miles of red tape. Sure, everyone's got complaints about their ISP, but if you think it's going to get better when you're dealing with AT&T, you're dreaming.
A direct connection to the Internet would be nice, for a lot of us. But widespread adoption of a high-tech service like Internet access is going to need help from a lot of independent partners who are willing to do the "dirty work" of dealing with individuals.
Now's the opportunity to set a precedent for perpetuity, that open and fair _unrestricted_ access to consumers is the only way to spur economic development. Legislation that forces providers to open their lines would be a godawful nightmare.
Yeah, like the lawyers are on our side this time. They smell blood and they see a lot of momentum in the Slashdot crowd, which is why this man is courting the community. Don't fall for the ploy; what you want is an open and unrestricted market, not a new digital telecom market with new restrictions and new special rules.
The "good intentions" of the FCC got us into the current telecom regulation disaster. Say "No" to new restrictions on economic action and say "Yes" to the development of a fair, unencumbered model that will ultimately provide _all_ of us with cheap, pervasive broadband access.
It's called steganography: "data hiding". As opposed to encryption, which scrambles data in an unpredictable pattern, steganography is about burying important data inside "harmless" data.
A lot of simple steganography is done through image files: the hidden data is written in a watermark across the image by slightly altering pixel values in a given pattern.
I used to be subscribed to a steganography mailing list... don't know if it's still around. You can find code for embedding data in images around the Net.
Yes, but most Linux users don't do a whiff of development. Even so, they feel they should "get involved", so they really have no recourse apart from complaining, loudly, to whomever will listen.
Linux used to be a predominantly development-oriented community, but the numbers of pedagogues have grown so quickly that they've dwarfed the real developmers in terms of numbers.
It's hard to blame them. The Net gives them a voice, Linux gives them a cause, and Microsoft gives them a Skeletor/Darth Vader/Whatever to hate. The rest is just socialization.
> If you really find GNU software morally repugnant, write alternatives to it. Until then, stop posting flamebait. Sheesh.
Okay, he's done that. Can he post his flamebait, now?
TC was one of the major authors of Perl. He was one of the major authors of the Camel book. He wrote the lion's share of the Perl documentation, including the well-known 'perltoot'. All in all, he's probably the world's single most important contributor to the bridge between free software and the commercial software industry.
HP/Convex still has internal newsgroup posings from TC on file that demonstrate his committment to helping other people get useful work done, let alone his committment to getting work done, himself.
If you really knew who TC is, you'd find your own comments ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
> I call your bluff. WHAT groups are allowed to
> hold RELIGIOUS meetings in PUBLIC school
> buildings, while Christians cannot? Name some.
My bluff? I don't have the case notes in front of me here at work. If the issue's important to you, find the information yourself, for now. You have my email address, if there's a burning need. I'll get back to you tonight, if I can. Other than that, sorry.
I _do_ have some notes here on a "Chandler v. James" case in Alabama, wherein a federal court has banned all manner of student-initiated religious activities...
> Yes, this is called CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PUBLIC
> school teachers are agents of the state.
They're what? I thought they were employees, private citizens on the payroll of a local government. Now they're "agents"? No, you're mistaken.
> The state is, by mandate of the Constitution,
> Areligious...religiously neutral. It would be a
> conflict of interest for a teacher to do so.
This is plainly nonsense. If the State is "areligious", that means that it _has no interest_. Therefore, there can be no conflict of interest, because there is no prior interest with which to have conflict.
What I think you mean to say is that it would cause the appearance of improprietry precisely because the State can have no interest in religion.
If that's your view, you're wrong anyway: the State has demonstrated a compelling interest in providing educational services, and that must include religion, at least tangentially, because religion is an integral facet of history.
You see the bind you're in. I hope. The only way out is to give religion an academic look and leave preferential treatment to individuals (including teachers outside of their official capacities). I suppose the government could simply walk away from its public education debacle, but that's too much to hope for.
> We weren't forced to pray or BELIEVE in its
> ideology. That is where your argument has a
> flaw.
I don't see how _anyone_ can be forced to either pray or believe, so I'm interested to know how that can be the flaw in my argument. That would be a neat trick, if you could explain it.
> which INCLUDES freedom FROM religious practice
How did you think you could sneak that by? Where is it written that freedom of religion means freedom from hearing people pray around you? What's wrong with you that you can't stand the free exercise of other people's religions?
After attempting to paint Christians as intolerant, you come up with _this_ crap?
MJP
Well said. Liberty is a part of Christian grace, and self-control is the fruit of the Spirit. Both were embodied in Christ, Himself.
MJP
> Vague though this principle may be, it is still
> clearly a *moral principle*.
No, it's a political principle. Game over, thanks for playing.
It is the mistaken notion of outsiders to Libertarianism that Libertarians believe in being fundamentally, morally agnostic. That's far from the truth; many Libertarians hold fervent moral beliefs and hold themselves to the strictest, most Spartan disciplines.
In fact, the two go hand-in-hand. Libertarians by-and-large have great respect for other people because they, themselves, have a strong sense of virtue. If Libertarians were senseless, immoral pigs, I doubt we would care much for the high-minded notions of individual respect and friendly persuasion.
Libertarianism is the belief that government should be established according to Rule of Law, and that its operation should never be considered superior to the free, unhindered actions and associations of people. It depends most upon the establishment of a firm and just Law, and the creation of the United States Constitution marks the first coherent time that such a thing had ever been done.
Today Libertarianism opposes the criminalization of drugs, prostitution, and adultery, for instance. Some suppose, as a result, that Libertarians believe such things are _morally acceptable_ as a matter of policy. In fact, most of us find such things morally _repugnant_. However, we feel that any time government power is employed to "fix" the problems caused, things get _worse_, not better.
This is another reason that Libertarians are often virtuous: lacking belief in the salvific power of Government, they turn to moral government in Law, self-restraint, and belief in God.
It's a source of shame to see that many Christians believe their calling to be something akin to the creation of a theocracy. Others believe, in Anabaptist fashion, that the only proper recourse is to completely withdraw from society and to hurl insults from afar. Some, amazingly enough, manage to work for both at the same time.
The truth is that Christians are called to be the Salt of the Earth. It is the Spirit of God that changes hearts, not silly, stupid laws from the Presidential bully pulpit. When the body of Christ realizes that war, legislation, and separatism are basically losing the struggle, perhaps they'll begin to have a real impact on the lives of real people.
MJP
> Nonsense. Schools don't forbid
/. as you are on
> before/after-school private prayer groups,
> praying at lunches, etc.
Many schools _do_ forbid such things, and their actions are being upheld in court. Moreover, they forbid religious meetings in public school buildings after school hours, while other groups are allowed to do so, denying those groups equal access to public resources. And teachers are forbidden to pray with students privately, even when the student expresses a wish for such activity.
The spirit of the Church/state separation doctrine would have everyone treated equally in the eyes of the law; what's happened instead is that Christians are treated as second-class citizens.
> What they forbid is a school policy setting
> aside classroom time for "prayer time".
I spent years in a Jesuit school, wherein classroom time was set aside for a prayer every morning. I think you mean "public school policy"; you would do well to note that it is in public schools, specifically, that Christians are denied their faith in a matter as harmless as prayer.
Is it illegal to spend "classroom time" on the spiritual teachings of Ghandi and Maya Angelou? Are the words of _Reverend_ Martin Luther King, Jr., in his _I Have A Dream_ speech, forbidden from the halls of public schools?
Of course not. They are curriculum, as must be a discussion of the Christian roots of many in this country. I'd have no objection to a passionless discourse on the many religions that constitute America's makeup. It would be of great satisfaction to me to learn some Islamic history alongside Confucianism; in fact, I did hear quite a lot of it while I went to public schools (though I might wish for more, centered as the public schools are on Western European history).
But you can't say that denying Christian freedoms once they walk into a public building is "fair treatment".
I say it merely for the sake of argument. I don't ask for _fair_ from you, or anyone else, honestly. If I depended upon _fair_ from the likes of my peers I think I would be greatly disappointed.
> You're as much of an idiot on
> Usenet, Peck. Too bad I don't have my killfile
> here.
I won't guess who this might be, and I won't remind you of your self-respect when you post here, anonymously. I simply ask you to state your name so that you can look me in the face.
MJP
> there, you have made a judgement about his state
> of mind, even his very well being simply
> because he freely spoke his mind. You assume to
> much and judged his character...
I'm free to make judgments about a man's words and actions. I never made a judgment about his character, although you assume too much, yourself, if you assume that I'd be wrong to do so. Judging character by words and actions is an important part of maturity, and gentle discernment is a great virtue. What company do _you_ keep?
> As an agnostic, and an American I find this
> religious bombardment offensive.
I by "religious bombardment" you mean the protestations of Christians whose lawful ability to speak prayer or assemble peacefully in public schools is being abrogated, I don't know why you're complaining. If your aim is to wipe out mainstream lawful acknowledgement of Christian faith, you're winning.
Then again:
> Ever heard of the seperation of church and
> state.
Yes, separation of _church_ and state. Take a careful look at those words. Reread your history lessons. The Founders opposed religious tyranny on the basis of an established church within the government. They opposed theocracy.
What you hang upon those words, instead, is your own brand of religious tyranny. It's not hard to guess why.
MJP
Since you insist on attacking this brave poster as a proxy for his religion, I can't offer an argument in kind. Odd that you challenge his character when your bitter (and profane) resentment toward all things sacred would appear to be eating you alive.
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack. He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking. He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation!
And claim it, we do. To the original poster, God bless.
MJP
I have a better idea: write two programs.
I'm really amazed at how many of these complaints I can answer straight from Mike Gancarz book, _The UNIX Philosophy_. According to Gancarz, you write the 90% solution, which means that your program is correct for 90% of your audience. If the missing ten percent cannot cope with its issues, it can write its own program.
Another Garcarz tenet: don't reinvent the wheel. Given the advent of the Open Source movement, if the "incorrect" program is Open Source, it is possible to take that code and simply modify it to reflect "correct" behavior. Perhaps modifying the program to suit the 10%'s needs only requires 10% of the original effort...
...which would make this process simple, efficient, consistent, and _correct_. Rather tidy.
MJP
> Why do you bother developing? The people who use
:P
> your programs are only going to be experiencing
> a "canned interactive slideshow"!
No, not my users.
> Besides, if they really wanted to do something,
> they'd write the program themselves in so
> cryptic a manner that it would be unusable to
> anyone but them.
No, it would be effective for them to use. Isn't that the point?
MJP
> What is correct UI?
Correctness is flexible. It applies when there is some question of conformance. For instance, it is inaccurate to say that "throwing a volume away" is equivalent to ejecting it, but that is exactly the metaphor presented on the MacOS desktop, for the sake of consistently using that "throw away" gesture.
In this case it is _incorrect_ but consistent. Likewise, it is _incorrect_ to allow the user to "throw away" fixed volumes, but the action is allowed anyway (with a failure message). In this manner, fixed volume treatment in the UI is consistent with removable volumes, but plainly incorrect.
> What is efficient UI?
Efficiency measures the overall time and effort required for task completion, as a function of task significance. The MacOS achieves an illusion of efficiency only by keeping task significance very low. Therefore, the MacOS user may say "I move files so quickly!" but a command-line pro may know that in twice as much time he performed comprehensive FS logic of much greater significance than to copy or move several files.
> Why can't you (through good engineering) have
> all of these virtues?
You can strive for all of them, but only if you are willing to juggle your priorities carefully. Strict adherence to certain priorities (like user-friendliness) without regard for others (task significance) leads to an wildly unbalanced interface like that found in the MacOS.
> Therefore, interfaces that facilitate (that
> means make easy)
This is misleading. Facilitate means "help bring about". If an interface makes comprehension simpler to achieve but only at the cost of effectiveness, have you really achieved anything of value?
> The ONLY THING this company has is a KILLER
> user interface. That's the ONLY way the company
> has stayed afloat.
I used to agree, but increased exposure to the rest of the world and considerable expenditure of thought have drastically changed my opinion. The MacOS has an interface that is very pleasant for many people to use; that it is pleasant has no bearing on its effectiveness.
Along the way, I came to the realization that MacOS is no longer even pleasant for me to use! I lost my respect for both its utility and its aesthetics. At this point I think it might the worst overall UI in widespread use today.
> If you have better articles, I'd love to read
> them.
I'm not expert, but I've got plenty of opinions. I'll tell you what: my email address is mjpeck@nstar.net. If you email me with your own address, I'll give you an earful on what I think would be a good graphical interface. I'm actually working on such a project, and I'd be grateful for feedback, and an ear to just hear out my reasoning.
MJP
They're not necessarily in conflict. However, when they are, your UI always sacrifices correctness for consistency and efficiency for simplicity.
As for niche success, what do I care? Isn't the quality of an interface of primary import? That's what you Mac people were telling us throughout all of Apple's lean years... now that things look better, you can afford the luxury of honesty?
Well, I guess I was wrong; you'll sacrifice consistency for _some_ things, I suppose.
MJP
I develop. Perl, C, bash, OpenGL, and XML.
MJP
> Note that some of us consider "your" (making a gross
> overgeneralization) brand of fragmented, inconsistent, willy-nilly "open" user interface to be the
> worst combination of attributes ever expressed on a bitmap display.
Of course you do. You measure everything by an opposite standard: you value consistency over correctness, and you value simplicity over efficiency.
Quite literally, you prefer what is "easy" (consistently simple) over what is "effective" (efficient and correct).
Weaved in, throughout, this philosophy contains self-aggrandizing notions like superior aesthetics, etc., and some other laughable ideas, but the main current is that no compromise is too severe, as long as it is made in the name of those two sacred attributes: simplicity and consistency.
MJP
> Reliable, user-friendly tools are what computers > are SUPPOSED to be.
Like hell they are. Computers are "SUPPOSED" to perform massive logical functions in a reasonably finite period of time. Nowadays a massive portion of that logical functionality is spent actively destroying the user's experience: by creating a captive interface that restricts efficiency.
These days people _think_ they're "using a computer". In reality, they're experiencing little more than a canned, interactive slideshow. They stare stupidly at it, and because SO LITTLE effort is expected of them, they are pleased. Of COURSE they like it! Why not just put them in front of a TV and tell them they're doing "work"? Wouldn't _anybody_ like to be told such a thing?
It's all done in the name of "user-friendliness", of course, just as you've justified it. I'm just calling a spade a spade; it's none of my business how you choose to use your computer.
MJP
> Using a Mac can clue you, as a programmer,
> into some good User Interface ideas.
Ah, right. Like the idea that using a menu should block every running task. Like the idea that moving files to and from multiple volumes should require three and four steps to accomplish. Like the idea that windows should be resizeable from exactly one corner. Like the idea that using one window from one process should require raising _EVERY_ window owned by that process. Like the idea that mouse and keyboard bindings are hardcoded values in the environment.
Excuse, but I don't need any of those clues. In fact I'm doing my best to ensure that I never go anywhere near that kind of trash.
How can I be polite about this? No offense, but some of us consider your brand of captive user interface to be just about the worst combination of attributes ever expressed on a bitmap display.
[phew]
MJP
> People like you, who don't care about design...
This is way too funny. I care enough about design to "optimize Perl code", but since I don't appreciate translucent orange plastic, I obviously have no taste.
That's such a brilliant coup; it's like the guy in a clown suit strutting around like a high-fashion snob, and getting away with it. I mean, these are people who would undoubtedly appreciate the "taste" and "design" of pink toenail polish with sparkles, and they're looking down their long noses at people who see beauty in good engineering and hard work, but don't care about superficiality.
Apple must truly be the poster child of this new generation of idiots.
MJP
> You'll learn a lot about how computers ought to
> work.
No, you won't. You'll learn to form a lot of opinions about "The Way Things Ought To Be", but you won't learn a damned thing about computers.
You might as well be using a console, plugging in various cartridges: "here's Photoshop, here's SmoochyGoo, here's BaubleBlast!, here's Ye_Olde_PC_Game_Port. I don't really do _anything_ with the OS, or the API, or the shell. I just run programs, and that's the way it _ought_ to be!"
Go right ahead. And smoke some crack while you're at it, that'll fit right in with the whole "entertain-me" mentality.
MJP
Actually, the speed difference is going to be apparent from more than just the video card specs. It's got a pig of a system bus (66 MHz), a relatively small L2 cache, and a tiny amount of physical memory.
That disk isn't going to be winning any races, either...
MJP
Name me any restaurant where the owner is _FORCED_ to sell either Coke or Pepsi.
So much for your theory about the free market.
MJP
PS. Diamond Shamrock sells both Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Nyah-nyah...
ISPs provide more than just IP addresses. They provide customer support, primarily (a critical job). They also provide a newsfeed, indirectly. They provide email services, a point of accountability, filtration services (a large and growing industry), and a billing contact.
ISPs _are_ the last-mile. They are the reason you don't have to call the phone company and wade through miles of red tape. Sure, everyone's got complaints about their ISP, but if you think it's going to get better when you're dealing with AT&T, you're dreaming.
A direct connection to the Internet would be nice, for a lot of us. But widespread adoption of a high-tech service like Internet access is going to need help from a lot of independent partners who are willing to do the "dirty work" of dealing with individuals.
MJP
Or "Hear, hear!". Whichever you like...
MJP
Now's the opportunity to set a precedent for perpetuity, that open and fair _unrestricted_ access to consumers is the only way to spur economic development. Legislation that forces providers to open their lines would be a godawful nightmare.
Yeah, like the lawyers are on our side this time. They smell blood and they see a lot of momentum in the Slashdot crowd, which is why this man is courting the community. Don't fall for the ploy; what you want is an open and unrestricted market, not a new digital telecom market with new restrictions and new special rules.
The "good intentions" of the FCC got us into the current telecom regulation disaster. Say "No" to new restrictions on economic action and say "Yes" to the development of a fair, unencumbered model that will ultimately provide _all_ of us with cheap, pervasive broadband access.
MJP
It's called steganography: "data hiding". As opposed to encryption, which scrambles data in an unpredictable pattern, steganography is about burying important data inside "harmless" data.
A lot of simple steganography is done through image files: the hidden data is written in a watermark across the image by slightly altering pixel values in a given pattern.
I used to be subscribed to a steganography mailing list... don't know if it's still around. You can find code for embedding data in images around the Net.
MJP
Yes, but most Linux users don't do a whiff of development. Even so, they feel they should "get involved", so they really have no recourse apart from complaining, loudly, to whomever will listen.
Linux used to be a predominantly development-oriented community, but the numbers of pedagogues have grown so quickly that they've dwarfed the real developmers in terms of numbers.
It's hard to blame them. The Net gives them a voice, Linux gives them a cause, and Microsoft gives them a Skeletor/Darth Vader/Whatever to hate. The rest is just socialization.
MJP
I was thinking of using "Anonymous Coward" but you already took it, apparently.
MJP
> If you really find GNU software morally repugnant, write alternatives to it. Until then, stop posting flamebait. Sheesh.
Okay, he's done that. Can he post his flamebait, now?
TC was one of the major authors of Perl. He was one of the major authors of the Camel book. He wrote the lion's share of the Perl documentation, including the well-known 'perltoot'. All in all, he's probably the world's single most important contributor to the bridge between free software and the commercial software industry.
HP/Convex still has internal newsgroup posings from TC on file that demonstrate his committment to helping other people get useful work done, let alone his committment to getting work done, himself.
If you really knew who TC is, you'd find your own comments ridiculous.
MJP