"and their [sic] stuck with their anologue phone that resembles a house brick."
Uh, we've had digital phones small enough to fit in a shirt pocket unobtrusively (i.e., 4 oz., 4" x 2" x 1" max dimensions) for a couple of years now.
"half the stations were stuck on AM when I was over in the US, "FM" was like a new fangled thing."
Uh, you're joking right? I've been listening to nothing but FM since 1970. When were you in the U.S., 1965?
AM is still broadcast largely for rural listeners. Once you get very far from an FM tower in a place with real mountains , the reception gets quite bad, whereas AM is still audible many miles away. Remember, the U.S. is an awful lot bigger than the UK.
"I like using Oingo. Honestly the hits it turns up are not always great and it is tricky to use but it is not a "stupid" search engine. It attempts some level of ontologizing (ontologization?)... and its about time someone tried that."
Yes, yes, yes! I just tried Oingo (never heard of it before), and it not only turns up relevant web sites, but will return a whole ontological category, with all the major sites in that category as well.
Moreover, you can specify which of several recognized "meanings" of each term the search engine should use. For example, I tried "Dylan incremental compiler," and was able to refine the search by selecting from a pop-up menu that the meaning of "Dylan" I meant was "object oriented programming language" as opposed to a "Celic deity."
Really, it's brilliant. I agree that ontological approaches are the way to go for intelligent people searching the web for meaningful information. Thanks for the link.
"The point is, that with most "hard" skills, people are aware that they must count the cost of attaining skill.
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. I believe that many people entertain a very silly, even childish distinction between certain tasks based on how easy they *look*.
For example, a skilled *nix user looks like s/he is just typing away, no sweat, and lots of useful things get done. A skilled artist looks like s/he is just splashing paint around, and a beautiful image results.
Naive people entertain the fantasy that all they need to do is buy a computer, or some brushes, paint and canvas, and they'll soon be writing the next big 1st person shooter, or painting masterpieces. Obviously, this is not so.
Again, I think this is largely because certain tasks, once mastered, are made by those who have mastered them to *look* easy. Other tasks, like carpentry, continue to look hard and complex, even when a master carpenter performs them.
"That isn't really a bad thing, either, until you NEED to know what's going on. "
Many on this forum I believe feel threatened by the idea that, in a properly thought out system, much of what they know about the functioning of the internals of the software and hardware, is simply a mass of details that are largely irrelevant to getting the job at hand done. Unless the job at hand is software development or harware engineering, then knowing what goes on "under the hood" really doesn't matter.
Many, many drivers haven't the foggiest clue what goes on under the hood of their cars. They only know that they need to pull into a service station when they're low on gas, or when one of the warning lights come on.
Computers can be designed the same way. Simply allow the baby level users to do simple things, but provide users with the freedom to advance to more complex working methods if and when they want to.
Note that the above post, which states that computers "aren't going to get any easier to use in the future," and bemoans the goal of user friendliness, is itself, one extremely reader-unfriendly, run-on paragraph. Sadly, some people give little thought to how others will experience their work, and so their work is much less easy for others to deal with than need be.
If one does not like to deal with such "user interface" issues, one should find someone else who *is* good at such things to present one's work to a wider audience. Simply dismissing the whole issue of user friendliness just guarantees one's work an unnecessarily limited audience.
"In such an architecture, you can make the GUI as "easy to use" as you want, without affecting another user's ability to "get at the guts", because he doesn't have to use your GUI.
This shows a fundemental misunderstanding of what makes a GUI "easy to use." It is *not* simply having a button or menu for everything you like to do. It *is* having the GUI of all your applications, and your desktop, behave in a truly consistent manner across the board, so that cut and paste work the same in all apps, drag and drop work the same in all apps, and the desktop. Menus work the same in all apps, etc.
This sort of consistency is what allows users to pick up a new application and be productive with it almost at once. It is this sort of consistency that is sorely lacking across X apps, and it is why, no matter how glitzy a window manager you throw over them, the free *nices still cant match the ease of use of the MacOS.
Part of the problem may well be the fact that many power users think that the standard of GUI usability is Windows, since that's all they've seen other than *nix. This is simply misguided.
The mass market, easy to use GUI was pioneered by Apple, and they are still the leaders in ease of use, because of developer conformance to Apples HIG (Human Interface Guidelines). Now, Apple is about to add a full BSD unix underneath their many years of experience with extremely consistent GUIs, making MacOS X the easiest to learn, power-user OS around.
Why don't free *nix advocates see that *consistency* not flashisness, or resemblance to windows, is what makes ease of use?
"I see no reason why computers can't have several layers of user friendliness. When you're comfortable with one leve and ready to move on, you enable the next layer of complexity."
Good point. However, most important for mindshare and marketshare, is how easy to use the "newbie" level is, because this is where the overwhelming majority of users will enter the system. If this level is sufficiently buggy, the new users will never bother to become advanced users, they'll just walk away. If the "newbie" level *requires* use of the power-user interface (like editing config files, or using the command line) to get basic things done such as modem setup, or printer setup, then, again, new users will never bother to become advanced users. Therefore, the most user-friendly level should have sufficient power to do the things that even beginning users need to do, easily, consistenly, and seamlessly.
Multi-level UIs is where OSes are converging. From the power-user side, the free *nices are adding increasingly easy to use GUIs - desktops and window managers. From the newbie side, the MacOS is layering it's extremely consistent, easy to learn GUI over a full BSD unix, with terminal windows/command line, bash, gcc, apache, etc. That's what MacOS X is.
But in order to succeed, an OS must ensure that the *easiest* UI level, the GUI, is seamless and easy to use. Power users expect, and can tolerate a little complexity, but most new users cannot, and it is from the legions of new users that tomorrows power users will come. If you want these future power users to end up on your OS of choice, then you need to make sure that the entry level UI on your OS is extremely consistent and user freindly. So far, the free *nices are not there yet. Much of this is due to the inconsistency of X application user interfaces on the one hand. On the other, it is due to the immature state of the free desktops, by which I mean, their failure to provide complete access to every sort of configuration a new user will likely need to do in a consistent, easy to understand way. Great progress has been made, but they're still not there yet.
Yes, Jon, there is a "regulon" (what a lame neologism)
Because the "semiosphere" (just like "cyberspace") is just another BS idea. In reality, ideas must have some physical expression in order to be tranmitted to human beings. Whether that physical expression is space on a server and the cost of bandwidth, or a printed page, ultimately doesn't make much difference.
It actually costs money to serve web pages, show infomercials, and publish information. It may have seemed like there was unlimited funding for such intellectual trash during the dotcom boom, but now, such venture funding is drying up fast.
Only those bits of information for which someone is willing to *pay* will survive, because people won't spend money on publishing information if they're not getting anything back for that cost.
So, yes Jon, there is a "regulon" - the "regulon" is cost.
Slashdot Mirror
"and their [sic] stuck with their anologue phone that resembles a house brick."
Uh, we've had digital phones small enough to fit in a shirt pocket unobtrusively (i.e., 4 oz., 4" x 2" x 1" max dimensions) for a couple of years now.
"half the stations were stuck on AM when I was over in the US, "FM" was like a new fangled thing."
Uh, you're joking right? I've been listening to nothing but FM since 1970. When were you in the U.S., 1965?
AM is still broadcast largely for rural listeners. Once you get very far from an FM tower in a place with real mountains , the reception gets quite bad, whereas AM is still audible many miles away. Remember, the U.S. is an awful lot bigger than the UK.
Let's make it our objective for 2100 that over half of the population of the world can...
perform brain surgery on their neighbors
repair their refrigerator if the compressor breaks
rewire their own house without causing an electrical hazzard
design and build all the bridges they need to cross when driving
(Not to irony impaired - ever hear of *specialists?*)
"I like using Oingo. Honestly the hits it turns up are not always great and it is tricky to use but it is not a "stupid" search engine. It attempts some level of ontologizing (ontologization?)... and its about time someone tried that."
Yes, yes, yes! I just tried Oingo (never heard of it before), and it not only turns up relevant web sites, but will return a whole ontological category, with all the major sites in that category as well.
Moreover, you can specify which of several recognized "meanings" of each term the search engine should use. For example, I tried "Dylan incremental compiler," and was able to refine the search by selecting from a pop-up menu that the meaning of "Dylan" I meant was "object oriented programming language" as opposed to a "Celic deity."
Really, it's brilliant. I agree that ontological approaches are the way to go for intelligent people searching the web for meaningful information. Thanks for the link.
"The point is, that with most "hard" skills, people are aware that they must count the cost of attaining skill.
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. I believe that many people entertain a very silly, even childish distinction between certain tasks based on how easy they *look*.
For example, a skilled *nix user looks like s/he is just typing away, no sweat, and lots of useful things get done. A skilled artist looks like s/he is just splashing paint around, and a beautiful image results.
Naive people entertain the fantasy that all they need to do is buy a computer, or some brushes, paint and canvas, and they'll soon be writing the next big 1st person shooter, or painting masterpieces. Obviously, this is not so.
Again, I think this is largely because certain tasks, once mastered, are made by those who have mastered them to *look* easy. Other tasks, like carpentry, continue to look hard and complex, even when a master carpenter performs them.
"That isn't really a bad thing, either, until you NEED to know what's going on. "
Many on this forum I believe feel threatened by the idea that, in a properly thought out system, much of what they know about the functioning of the internals of the software and hardware, is simply a mass of details that are largely irrelevant to getting the job at hand done. Unless the job at hand is software development or harware engineering, then knowing what goes on "under the hood" really doesn't matter.
Many, many drivers haven't the foggiest clue what goes on under the hood of their cars. They only know that they need to pull into a service station when they're low on gas, or when one of the warning lights come on.
Computers can be designed the same way. Simply allow the baby level users to do simple things, but provide users with the freedom to advance to more complex working methods if and when they want to.
Note that the above post, which states that computers "aren't going to get any easier to use in the future," and bemoans the goal of user friendliness, is itself, one extremely reader-unfriendly, run-on paragraph. Sadly, some people give little thought to how others will experience their work, and so their work is much less easy for others to deal with than need be.
If one does not like to deal with such "user interface" issues, one should find someone else who *is* good at such things to present one's work to a wider audience. Simply dismissing the whole issue of user friendliness just guarantees one's work an unnecessarily limited audience.
"In such an architecture, you can make the GUI as "easy to use" as you want, without affecting another user's ability to "get at the guts", because he doesn't have to use your GUI.
This shows a fundemental misunderstanding of what makes a GUI "easy to use." It is *not* simply having a button or menu for everything you like to do. It *is* having the GUI of all your applications, and your desktop, behave in a truly consistent manner across the board, so that cut and paste work the same in all apps, drag and drop work the same in all apps, and the desktop. Menus work the same in all apps, etc.
This sort of consistency is what allows users to pick up a new application and be productive with it almost at once. It is this sort of consistency that is sorely lacking across X apps, and it is why, no matter how glitzy a window manager you throw over them, the free *nices still cant match the ease of use of the MacOS.
Part of the problem may well be the fact that many power users think that the standard of GUI usability is Windows, since that's all they've seen other than *nix. This is simply misguided.
The mass market, easy to use GUI was pioneered by Apple, and they are still the leaders in ease of use, because of developer conformance to Apples HIG (Human Interface Guidelines). Now, Apple is about to add a full BSD unix underneath their many years of experience with extremely consistent GUIs, making MacOS X the easiest to learn, power-user OS around.
Why don't free *nix advocates see that *consistency* not flashisness, or resemblance to windows, is what makes ease of use?
"I see no reason why computers can't have several layers of user friendliness. When you're comfortable with one leve and ready to move on, you enable the next layer of complexity."
Good point. However, most important for mindshare and marketshare, is how easy to use the "newbie" level is, because this is where the overwhelming majority of users will enter the system. If this level is sufficiently buggy, the new users will never bother to become advanced users, they'll just walk away. If the "newbie" level *requires* use of the power-user interface (like editing config files, or using the command line) to get basic things done such as modem setup, or printer setup, then, again, new users will never bother to become advanced users. Therefore, the most user-friendly level should have sufficient power to do the things that even beginning users need to do, easily, consistenly, and seamlessly.
Multi-level UIs is where OSes are converging. From the power-user side, the free *nices are adding increasingly easy to use GUIs - desktops and window managers. From the newbie side, the MacOS is layering it's extremely consistent, easy to learn GUI over a full BSD unix, with terminal windows/command line, bash, gcc, apache, etc. That's what MacOS X is.
But in order to succeed, an OS must ensure that the *easiest* UI level, the GUI, is seamless and easy to use. Power users expect, and can tolerate a little complexity, but most new users cannot, and it is from the legions of new users that tomorrows power users will come. If you want these future power users to end up on your OS of choice, then you need to make sure that the entry level UI on your OS is extremely consistent and user freindly. So far, the free *nices are not there yet. Much of this is due to the inconsistency of X application user interfaces on the one hand. On the other, it is due to the immature state of the free desktops, by which I mean, their failure to provide complete access to every sort of configuration a new user will likely need to do in a consistent, easy to understand way. Great progress has been made, but they're still not there yet.
"there is no Regulon in the Semiosphere"
Yes, Jon, there is a "regulon" (what a lame neologism)
Because the "semiosphere" (just like "cyberspace") is just another BS idea. In reality, ideas must have some physical expression in order to be tranmitted to human beings. Whether that physical expression is space on a server and the cost of bandwidth, or a printed page, ultimately doesn't make much difference.
It actually costs money to serve web pages, show infomercials, and publish information. It may have seemed like there was unlimited funding for such intellectual trash during the dotcom boom, but now, such venture funding is drying up fast.
Only those bits of information for which someone is willing to *pay* will survive, because people won't spend money on publishing information if they're not getting anything back for that cost.
So, yes Jon, there is a "regulon" - the "regulon" is cost.