Over the last month I've been reading user comments at sites other than Slashdot. The topic will draw me in but soon the idiocy, rudeness, thoughtlessness, etc. will drive me right back out. This experience has been at some sites that produce very thoughtful articles. But when I look at the quality of the associated comments I think I'd be out of my mind to try to respond to the comments, most of which haven't even read the original article. Comments have become a socially acceptable way to rant. To me it seems futile to try to engage in thoughtful conversation in that environment. So to me, yes, in that one area there's no question that not only is the internet making us stupider, it actually seems to be making stupidity legit.
That's not true at Slashdot, but only because I have the filter set as high as it will go, and know that I'll still need to ignore 50% of what I read.
Now some ranter can call this elitist or whatever term that they find handiest to deflect their thoughts from actually considering what I've just said. That seems to be the nature of comments.
There of course is much more to the internet and google than comments but the example is telling I think. Information can be found on the internet. Finding answers to programming syntax that I might have forgotten is incredibly easy. But that doesn't substitute for all the books I've read to help me understand the underlying language.
Many years ago there was a book that criticized television, not for it's content but for the physical medium itself, saying that staring at a TV screen for so many hours each day, was in itself harmful. To me the same is true of a computer monitor, regardless of content. I've never been able to concentrate on something I read online with the focus of something that I read on paper. That may just be my age. But I have a very hard time believing that is true.
Since I've had a couple of questions if not criticisms I thought I ought to say how useful I found the section on flipflops today. I've needed to parse a log file where it's important to match and grab more than just one line. I used to do this in sed and awk but this script is not for a *nix platform. Then I read this:
ARGF.each do |line| print line if line=~/TODO/..line=~/^$/
Perfect for what I needed to do! It's now a 15 line ruby script. And though the paragraph begins by saying "flipflops are a fairly obscure feature of Ruby" it turns out to be exactly what I needed.
I agree with you that it's good to have a variety of books and styles on Ruby. I didn't mean to criticize this one, just to get a better explanation, esp. when the author was available. To me it seems odd to say that "constants are constant" and then move on without further explanation. I believe David's response explained just why he did so: he felt speaking about some of the languages rougher spots might seem overly critical.
I come from a different background that thinks something is more easily understood if its fully explained, warts and all. So I'd prefer to see an extra line perhaps explaining why constants are constant than a line of very unlikely usage, i.e. the extravagant parallel assignment. But that is just me and my personal preferences.
I also asked these questions because I've had such mixed reactions to David's books in the past. Again this is just me. I really disliked the Javascript book, even though I forced myself through most of it. So I was shocked to find out how much I enjoyed Java in a Nutshell and Java Examples in a Nutshell from the same author. When I found the two parts of the Ruby book that had caught my attention while reading the book yesterday it seemed like a good time to just ask David. I liked his answers and they helped explain to me why I've had a mixed reaction to some of his books. They have a matter of fact style that I sometimes wish was more expansive. That's just me and his answers helped to clarify that.
As an aside I'm still looking for the perfect Ruby book. So far Ruby for Rails has been the most enjoyable to me personally, even though it is not as in depth, nor does it intend to be, as the Pickaxe book, the Ruby Way, etc. And I am enjoying The Ruby Programming Language.........
Thanks for the detailed response David. If I do need to use Javascript again (I currently don't) I'll take a look at the new edition. I must say I'm very fond of the newest Java in a Nutshell and Java Examples in a Nutshell.
I suppose what I've written are more questions about the style of the book than anything else and I think you've answered them well. I hope they'll be useful to other potential readers of the Ruby book. And I look forward to finishing it myself.
I realize that my comments on the drawings might seem like needless criticism and I certainly don't want to be critical. On the other hand I just went back to whytheluckystiff's web site to see the drawings again and I'm more impressed than ever by them. So I was hoping for something special in the drawings for the book. I ended up being a little disappointed. Maybe they'll grow on me, and if not there's always the web site..........
Well whilst the author is here, and while I'm part way through the book, let me ask a couple of questions. I should preface this by saying that I think Javascript the Definitive Guide made me hate Javascript all the more, while Java in a Nutshell and Java Examples in a Nutshell seemed to exemplars of good programming books. So needless to say I've puzzled over David's writing over the last few years. Why do I have such mixed feelings about books by the same author? I still don't know but maybe the following questions will help.
I was reading along today when I came to this: "Assignment to a constant that already exists causes Ruby to issue a warning. Ruby does execute the assignment, however, which means that constants are nor really constant." Now this is a bit of a surprising statement. Isn't this an elephant in the room? Shouldn't it get more of an explanation?
A few pages further on, while discussing parallel assignment, we get this: "a,(b,(c,d)) = [1,[2,[3,4]]] # Parens: a=1; b=2;c=3;d=4". Now I can figure out what is happening and what the book is trying to explain. But at the same time the book seems to ignore a second elephant in the room. Why in the world would someone ever write just a difficult to comprehend statement? Is is a common Ruby idiom? If so might it not be wise to offer some explanation of why it's an idiom?
As I think back on what I've read by David, and I realize I'm sort of leaving Matz out right here and don't know how much of the writing is his, I think I see a sort of matter of factness to it. My recollection of Ruby for Rails is that it is much more interested in explaining some of the odder parts of Ruby and Rails. Perhaps the authors just prefer a matter of fact style and figure that readers can go elsewhere for a explanation of what seem to me to be rather odd elements of Ruby?
I don't say this as a criticism but really more of a question. Don't the two examples I cite seem sort of odd? If so could someone explain why they are not explained any further. Is that not the intent or style of the book? If the answer to the last is true I think that's fine. All authors write in the way that best suits them. But I ask out of curiosity. If that is the case I think it might give other readers a better clue as to what to expect from the book. Some will like the matter of factness; while others probably would like something else to augment it.
And one last, sort of unrelated question: is anyone else disappointed by the drawings? When I read that the book would be illustrated by whytheluckystiff I thought that this would make a probably good book even better. But I find them very disappointing and far less visually interesting than what can be found on whytheluckystiff's web site.
I'm with the person who complained that no one seems to be held responsible for their own actions anymore and so a warning has to be given to avoid legal liability. This is nutty.
But the addictiveness of recent technology is I think unquestionable. Probably the best antidote to it though is public discussion not required warnings. Personally I prefer mockery. I don't say that to be mean. I just think that it is one of the most effective tools for changing social behavior. Once Davie Letterman or someone similar starts poking fun at someone or something no one wants to be seen with that person or doing that something. So enough jokes about how silly adults look in meetings pecking away two-thumbed at their blackberries might be more helpful than anything else in at least getting the possibly addicted to step back and look at their habit. As I said I do think light mockery is the most effective means. Barring that just talking about it as in this thread has got to be more helpful than warnings.
As someone else said Safari is still going strong. I've used it for at least 4 years, probably longer. But when I like what I read there I inevitably buy the hardcopy. There's nothing online that compares with the notes that I can make in the actual book, even though Safari actually allows you to make digital notes I believe.
Eventually the books I buy become obsolete, esp. as new editions come out. But this never seems like a waste of money to me. I buy them to learn. Reading them and marking them up is part of the learning process. If the books become obsolete or are too marked up to sell it doesn't make much difference to me. I bought the hard copy so I could learn something and I did so. The rest is unimportant. And, for whatever reason, I've never found that I learn something as well online. It may get me started. But to really consolidate what I learn I need the hardcopy.
(the whole point of my previously succinct comment has been obviated by slashdot's insistence that i actually include a comment)! there really should be no text here.
it was a joke, but one that came about by considering the possibility of some sort of magnetic force and then remembering that bird migration is often explained in part by magnetism.
I think that's pretty close to the truth. When I used to be a sysadmin I was under the impression that only "projects" were of any importance to the people in charge of the company. The projects were visible, talked about, and maybe made a little money. But the sysadmins saved them money every day by getting the product out without technical problems. But sysadmins were seen as just a cost, and one that was already paid for. Why should they be congratulated for doing their job? Well I'd say: because they just saved the company thousands of dollars by fixing a problem in an emergency and getting the product out the door on time. It reminds me of people who say relief pitchers shouldn't be paid much because they work so little, never realizing that without them much of the other work is for nought.
And all the more reason to actually have a SysAdmin appreciation day, though as many sysadmins have said: they'd rather just be appreciated than get a mug, free coke, or whatever.
And yes now I'm happily involved in "projects" and appreciated because of it. If I'd ever been appreciated for being a sysadmin I might have stayed with it.
I spent about 10 years as a SysAdmin. But since I did a fair amount of scripting in that job, and found it the most enjoyable part, I was finally able to get out of it and do nearly full-time development.
Who cares? Well I just mention it since I think I'm fairly objective in comparing how the two are valued in the company. Since this isn't primarily an IT company neither fare well, but I have to say that SysAdmins seem to be at the bottom of the barrel. For whatever reason the work they do, the dollars and behinds they save, are rarely appreciated. I've always found it very odd.
I'm not complaining, esp. as I'm really no longer involved in it. But I do think it's sort of foolish for companies to hold them in so little esteem..........
I can't disagree with you and your example. But my point was that most people are like you in looking for something specific, like restaurants in a particular area, not just "roast beef." The end result is something useful (a list of local restaurants). I'm ambivalent myself about tying information to specific geography (see my comments earlier on filtered reality) but it's easy to see how this could be useful to many people, as it was to you in your example.
The breathy enthusiasm of the original article didn't go into this however, instead using vague generalizations about "roast beef" on a dirt road, or "trails" while out with your bike. I think most people don't have the time or energy for such "surfing" but instead are looking for something much more specific.
I think my reaction was not so much against tying information to geography, and plenty of intelligent articles have been written on this, as to the breathless enthusiasm which informed the article. It was all hyper-enthusiasm and no skepticism. Like marketing.
The much more interesting question is something like this: what is lost by a technology-mediated world and how does it compare to what is gained? What do you lose when you decide when first getting to a national park to grab some device and start a search rather than looking around you. I was very serious when I mentioned those horrible taped tours that museums sell. As far as I'm concerned they give people a cheap understanding of what's in front of them rather than letting them figure it out for themselves. Good art doesn't come cheap. It's not easily packaged into a few sound bytes. Neither is nature. Perhaps restaurant-listings are. It may be that some things work better than others. But my real point was the silly breathless enthusiasm of a technology-mediated world without a hint of skepticism.
I have to wonder if the breathless enthusiasm in this article is the work of anything other than an internet marketer. I suppose technology and especially technology in the hands of early adopters does lend itself to proselytization and hyper-enthusiasm. But when there seems to be no skepticism whatsoever I have to think "marketer!"
How dumb does the author think real people are? Do you really expect that I'm going to be driving around with nothing to do but type "roast beef" into some sort of device? It's like web-surfing in 3D. Yes there are always some people who have plenty of time to do nothing more than surf the web looking for something interesting. But most people have a bit more purpose. Same thing in the new 3D web surfing world that the author envisions. Some people may have the spare time to just type in "roast beef" and see where it lands them. Most people will be a bit more purposeful and, if they should want a roast beef sandwich, would like to have some choice, like "Bill's Local RB" rather than the normal chain roast beef as someone else mentioned. So the examples are fairly unlikely and certainly unconvincing.
As far as that national parks I hate to see the day when such technology reaches them. I'm sure it already has, but I'm just fortunate enough to have missed it. It's bad enough to be walking in my local park, wondering why the person behind me is yelling at me only to realize that it's some nut on a cell phone who has decided that the park is the best place for a private conversation in a voice so loud that everyone else is forced to participate. In my experience most of those little folded pieces of paper from a national park that the author denigrates have plenty of information if you have the patience to read them. As far as anything else most of what the parks have to offer is right in front of you. Turn off your electronics and enjoy them. (Same thing with multimedia presentations in museums. The art can speak for itself if you only unplug yourself long enough to look at it.)
It seems to me that technology, rather than being the tool that it can be, for many has become an ersatz reality, a way to ignore or filter the world rather than directly experience it. That seems silly. I'm not an anti-technology luddite. But I hate to see articles such as this. As far as I'm concerned they are what give technology a bad name.
do you think there's some sort of connection between perl sigs and a preference for literacy over flashy effects, namely preferring book reading to slide shows?
Drawing with a computer is not easy. Making visual crap without the slightest bit of visual sophistication on a computer is. Not knowing the difference is even easier.
The article in a nutshell and Reuters should be proud.
Drawing skills have no relation to handwriting skills. A word means the same whether that word is produced by ink and quill, primer typewriter, or wordprocessor running Linux and Abiword. However the visual representation of something is completely different. If you can't tell the difference between a Chardin still life and a grocery store advertisement for tomatoes then you're a perfect example of the lack of visual accuity and drawing skills that the article talks about.
I cringe at the lifelessness of many "drawings" that I see in many newspapers, magazines and online. If the prose was as bad as the drawings the people who produce such drek would hide their heads in embarrasment. But most managers don't seem to have much visual acuity anymore either so they don't know just how bad they look, or how lifeless they make their products. (And I happen to work at one such place.)
By contrast those publications that do include graphics with some sign of drawing skills stand out. I won't to into particular examples but take a look at a newspaper that produces drawn illustrations with one that uses cookie cutter illustrations from some program. One shows both liveliness and imagination, the other............., ummm, not much, dullness I guess.
As in many crafts automation has its appeal and when first discovered seems to quickly overwhelm the traditional craft. But eventually the novelty of automation disappears and only those who can't afford or appreciate real craft are happy with the automated version. The rest appreciate the real thing. It doesn't make any difference whether we're talking about bread, furniture, or drawings. Handmade crafts, or even automated crafts that build upon real knowledge of crafts, are almost always superior to those automated crafts.
and not smart enough to realize it, or how condescending it is to those you're paying "attention" to.
it's very easy to poke fun at this but it would be interesting to see someone forecast its effect in business. i only say that because business seems to rule and if it finds that it's no longer making money by betting on the need for ever more distraction then things might change. for instance the video sales pitch in the produce mentioned in another thread. at some point there will be a rebellion against this.
i've rebelled for quite awhile because it's just so stupid . i'd rather be engaged with the world and everything it it than always half-distracted. but that's just me. at some point i hope there will be a lot more people like me. and at some point business will say "uh, oh. people don't want this continual distraction. now we need to sell protective shields, or meditation chambers, or wirefree zones in cities where people can walk without any type of electronic interference."
time will tell. let's just hope it happens quickly.
in the grocery store. it's already got enough noise/video pollution to make me think i've stumbled into the game section of my local video store by mistake.
i have to agree with the person looking for some measurment to weed out advertising types at birth. maybe send them to school as taxidermists or something.
advertising is the bane of our age but many take it for granted, like a person who never realizes that not all people eat macaroni and cheese prepared from a box for every meal. there is more to life than clever lies from advertisers. i wonder if we'll ever escape it enough to see just how pernicious it is. my guess is no.
on the other hand maybe i can take advantage of it. anybody want to buy some "quiet?" i'll have commercials up next week...............
And one man's eye candy is another's glittery trash. I'm with you slashdot: looks fine as is, isn't cluttered with rubbish, and loads quickly. That's what a web site should do, along with have something worth reading..........
I'm sure for some people computers are an addiction in the sense that they really do get very nervous if they can't get on a computer for their daily fix, whether the fix be email, internet, games whatever.
But for vast majority of people the internet is just like TV, another form of passive entertainment. TV gives us many dumb sitcoms but it also gives us sports, news talk shows, educational shows. They're all entertainment for various audiences. And people will get more back out of some than others.
My complaint about computers, which happen to be my job by the way, is that they're still pretty much a passive form of entertainment just like TV. So I get more out of reading a book than watching a movie, building a table than watching Norm Abrams show me how to build one, or going out birdwatching rather than watching a PBS show on it. In my experience active entertainment is always more rewarding than passive entertainment.
Though there are times when I don't really have the energy for active entertainment and passive entertainment is just what I need. But the problem with passive entertainment, whether it's computers or tv, is that it's very easy to choose more of it rather than get up and get involved with active entertaiment. Sort of like "you can't eat just one of them" in an old snack commercial. That gets a bit close to "addiction."
These are both very good books but they address two different audiences. Zeldman's book, which I've just finished reading for second time, is for more advanced html authors/designers. It addresses people who have been through the trials of browser incompatibilities and are looking for something better. As I said I think it's excellent. And his alistapart site shows just what great web design can be done using web standards.
But this book is for beginners. I just finished reading it. I didn't learn a whole lot but I did pick up a few things I had either never known or forgotten about. I may give this book to my wife who'd like to write some pages for herself. She's a complete neophyte. But I think this book is really geared to people like her. I believe one of the blurbs on the book talks about how refreshing it is to see a book that will start off new html/css authors with a foundation in standards. That I think is the real appeal of the book. It shows beginning authors how to use html/css using standards. And it does it in an entertaining and instructive way.
I wasn't particularly fond of Head First Java but I love Head First Servlets and JSP. The humor in this is quite a bit tamer but it's still a very good book for someone either just beginning html/css or looking for a basic review.
Re:It's Too Much.
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't think that it's harder at all to be legible in perl. It's just that unfortunately perl culture encourages illegibility. A great book that doesn't is Damian Conway's recent Perl: Best Practices. What a breath of fresh air to see someone say that perl ought to be legible. Sad to say I think that the things that brought perl to it's early prominence are also the things that have hurt it in the long run: the ability to do something complicated extremely quickly. Unfortunately this seems to have encouraged "clever" programmers, who use every clever perl trick in the book. All that cleverness has become part of perl culture.
Oddly enough I'm reading a book on Applescript right now (not because I really want to but because I need to write some fairly complicated scripts in it.) The book reminds me of perl in it's early days when it says how easy it is to do something or how Applescript magically does something for you, like understand whether you're in a string or math context. This seems good to beginners. But it the long run I think if lends itself to muddled code. There's just a little too much congratulations to each language for it's cleverness (and perl definitely is clever).
As far as Python goes god knows I tried to read either Programming or Learning Python but I just gave up. It just didn't hold my interest at all. Give me Java, or legible Perl any day!
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience skepticism is the one quality that most agitates employers, sad to say.
Don't have an SUV nor ever intend to get one but the Gladwell article was fascinating anyway..........
Over the last month I've been reading user comments at sites other than Slashdot. The topic will draw me in but soon the idiocy, rudeness, thoughtlessness, etc. will drive me right back out. This experience has been at some sites that produce very thoughtful articles. But when I look at the quality of the associated comments I think I'd be out of my mind to try to respond to the comments, most of which haven't even read the original article. Comments have become a socially acceptable way to rant. To me it seems futile to try to engage in thoughtful conversation in that environment. So to me, yes, in that one area there's no question that not only is the internet making us stupider, it actually seems to be making stupidity legit.
That's not true at Slashdot, but only because I have the filter set as high as it will go, and know that I'll still need to ignore 50% of what I read.
Now some ranter can call this elitist or whatever term that they find handiest to deflect their thoughts from actually considering what I've just said. That seems to be the nature of comments.
There of course is much more to the internet and google than comments but the example is telling I think. Information can be found on the internet. Finding answers to programming syntax that I might have forgotten is incredibly easy. But that doesn't substitute for all the books I've read to help me understand the underlying language.
Many years ago there was a book that criticized television, not for it's content but for the physical medium itself, saying that staring at a TV screen for so many hours each day, was in itself harmful. To me the same is true of a computer monitor, regardless of content. I've never been able to concentrate on something I read online with the focus of something that I read on paper. That may just be my age. But I have a very hard time believing that is true.
Only time will tell.
Since I've had a couple of questions if not criticisms I thought I ought to say how useful I found the section on flipflops today. I've needed to parse a log file where it's important to match and grab more than just one line. I used to do this in sed and awk but this script is not for a *nix platform. Then I read this:
ARGF.each do |line|
print line if line=~/TODO/..line=~/^$/
Perfect for what I needed to do! It's now a 15 line ruby script. And though the paragraph begins by saying "flipflops are a fairly obscure feature of Ruby" it turns out to be exactly what I needed.
I agree with you that it's good to have a variety of books and styles on Ruby. I didn't mean to criticize this one, just to get a better explanation, esp. when the author was available. To me it seems odd to say that "constants are constant" and then move on without further explanation. I believe David's response explained just why he did so: he felt speaking about some of the languages rougher spots might seem overly critical.
I come from a different background that thinks something is more easily understood if its fully explained, warts and all. So I'd prefer to see an extra line perhaps explaining why constants are constant than a line of very unlikely usage, i.e. the extravagant parallel assignment. But that is just me and my personal preferences.
I also asked these questions because I've had such mixed reactions to David's books in the past. Again this is just me. I really disliked the Javascript book, even though I forced myself through most of it. So I was shocked to find out how much I enjoyed Java in a Nutshell and Java Examples in a Nutshell from the same author. When I found the two parts of the Ruby book that had caught my attention while reading the book yesterday it seemed like a good time to just ask David. I liked his answers and they helped explain to me why I've had a mixed reaction to some of his books. They have a matter of fact style that I sometimes wish was more expansive. That's just me and his answers helped to clarify that.
As an aside I'm still looking for the perfect Ruby book. So far Ruby for Rails has been the most enjoyable to me personally, even though it is not as in depth, nor does it intend to be, as the Pickaxe book, the Ruby Way, etc. And I am enjoying The Ruby Programming Language.........
Thanks for the detailed response David. If I do need to use Javascript again (I currently don't) I'll take a look at the new edition. I must say I'm very fond of the newest Java in a Nutshell and Java Examples in a Nutshell.
I suppose what I've written are more questions about the style of the book than anything else and I think you've answered them well. I hope they'll be useful to other potential readers of the Ruby book. And I look forward to finishing it myself.
I realize that my comments on the drawings might seem like needless criticism and I certainly don't want to be critical. On the other hand I just went back to whytheluckystiff's web site to see the drawings again and I'm more impressed than ever by them. So I was hoping for something special in the drawings for the book. I ended up being a little disappointed. Maybe they'll grow on me, and if not there's always the web site..........
Thanks again for your response.
Well whilst the author is here, and while I'm part way through the book, let me ask a couple of questions. I should preface this by saying that I think Javascript the Definitive Guide made me hate Javascript all the more, while Java in a Nutshell and Java Examples in a Nutshell seemed to exemplars of good programming books. So needless to say I've puzzled over David's writing over the last few years. Why do I have such mixed feelings about books by the same author? I still don't know but maybe the following questions will help.
I was reading along today when I came to this: "Assignment to a constant that already exists causes Ruby to issue a warning. Ruby does execute the assignment, however, which means that constants are nor really constant." Now this is a bit of a surprising statement. Isn't this an elephant in the room? Shouldn't it get more of an explanation?
A few pages further on, while discussing parallel assignment, we get this: "a,(b,(c,d)) = [1,[2,[3,4]]] # Parens: a=1; b=2;c=3;d=4". Now I can figure out what is happening and what the book is trying to explain. But at the same time the book seems to ignore a second elephant in the room. Why in the world would someone ever write just a difficult to comprehend statement? Is is a common Ruby idiom? If so might it not be wise to offer some explanation of why it's an idiom?
As I think back on what I've read by David, and I realize I'm sort of leaving Matz out right here and don't know how much of the writing is his, I think I see a sort of matter of factness to it. My recollection of Ruby for Rails is that it is much more interested in explaining some of the odder parts of Ruby and Rails. Perhaps the authors just prefer a matter of fact style and figure that readers can go elsewhere for a explanation of what seem to me to be rather odd elements of Ruby?
I don't say this as a criticism but really more of a question. Don't the two examples I cite seem sort of odd? If so could someone explain why they are not explained any further. Is that not the intent or style of the book? If the answer to the last is true I think that's fine. All authors write in the way that best suits them. But I ask out of curiosity. If that is the case I think it might give other readers a better clue as to what to expect from the book. Some will like the matter of factness; while others probably would like something else to augment it.
And one last, sort of unrelated question: is anyone else disappointed by the drawings? When I read that the book would be illustrated by whytheluckystiff I thought that this would make a probably good book even better. But I find them very disappointing and far less visually interesting than what can be found on whytheluckystiff's web site.
I'm with the person who complained that no one seems to be held responsible for their own actions anymore and so a warning has to be given to avoid legal liability. This is nutty.
But the addictiveness of recent technology is I think unquestionable. Probably the best antidote to it though is public discussion not required warnings. Personally I prefer mockery. I don't say that to be mean. I just think that it is one of the most effective tools for changing social behavior. Once Davie Letterman or someone similar starts poking fun at someone or something no one wants to be seen with that person or doing that something. So enough jokes about how silly adults look in meetings pecking away two-thumbed at their blackberries might be more helpful than anything else in at least getting the possibly addicted to step back and look at their habit. As I said I do think light mockery is the most effective means. Barring that just talking about it as in this thread has got to be more helpful than warnings.
As someone else said Safari is still going strong. I've used it for at least 4 years, probably longer. But when I like what I read there I inevitably buy the hardcopy. There's nothing online that compares with the notes that I can make in the actual book, even though Safari actually allows you to make digital notes I believe.
Eventually the books I buy become obsolete, esp. as new editions come out. But this never seems like a waste of money to me. I buy them to learn. Reading them and marking them up is part of the learning process. If the books become obsolete or are too marked up to sell it doesn't make much difference to me. I bought the hard copy so I could learn something and I did so. The rest is unimportant. And, for whatever reason, I've never found that I learn something as well online. It may get me started. But to really consolidate what I learn I need the hardcopy.
migration?
(the whole point of my previously succinct comment has been obviated by slashdot's insistence that i actually include a comment)! there really should be no text here.
it was a joke, but one that came about by considering the possibility of some sort of magnetic force and then remembering that bird migration is often explained in part by magnetism.
I think that's pretty close to the truth. When I used to be a sysadmin I was under the impression that only "projects" were of any importance to the people in charge of the company. The projects were visible, talked about, and maybe made a little money. But the sysadmins saved them money every day by getting the product out without technical problems. But sysadmins were seen as just a cost, and one that was already paid for. Why should they be congratulated for doing their job? Well I'd say: because they just saved the company thousands of dollars by fixing a problem in an emergency and getting the product out the door on time. It reminds me of people who say relief pitchers shouldn't be paid much because they work so little, never realizing that without them much of the other work is for nought.
And all the more reason to actually have a SysAdmin appreciation day, though as many sysadmins have said: they'd rather just be appreciated than get a mug, free coke, or whatever.
And yes now I'm happily involved in "projects" and appreciated because of it. If I'd ever been appreciated for being a sysadmin I might have stayed with it.
I spent about 10 years as a SysAdmin. But since I did a fair amount of scripting in that job, and found it the most enjoyable part, I was finally able to get out of it and do nearly full-time development.
Who cares? Well I just mention it since I think I'm fairly objective in comparing how the two are valued in the company. Since this isn't primarily an IT company neither fare well, but I have to say that SysAdmins seem to be at the bottom of the barrel. For whatever reason the work they do, the dollars and behinds they save, are rarely appreciated. I've always found it very odd.
I'm not complaining, esp. as I'm really no longer involved in it. But I do think it's sort of foolish for companies to hold them in so little esteem..........
i sometimes get bored with slashdot humor but this time i have to say you have hit the nail and the author on the head, and properly so............
I can't disagree with you and your example. But my point was that most people are like you in looking for something specific, like restaurants in a particular area, not just "roast beef." The end result is something useful (a list of local restaurants). I'm ambivalent myself about tying information to specific geography (see my comments earlier on filtered reality) but it's easy to see how this could be useful to many people, as it was to you in your example.
The breathy enthusiasm of the original article didn't go into this however, instead using vague generalizations about "roast beef" on a dirt road, or "trails" while out with your bike. I think most people don't have the time or energy for such "surfing" but instead are looking for something much more specific.
I think my reaction was not so much against tying information to geography, and plenty of intelligent articles have been written on this, as to the breathless enthusiasm which informed the article. It was all hyper-enthusiasm and no skepticism. Like marketing.
The much more interesting question is something like this: what is lost by a technology-mediated world and how does it compare to what is gained? What do you lose when you decide when first getting to a national park to grab some device and start a search rather than looking around you. I was very serious when I mentioned those horrible taped tours that museums sell. As far as I'm concerned they give people a cheap understanding of what's in front of them rather than letting them figure it out for themselves. Good art doesn't come cheap. It's not easily packaged into a few sound bytes. Neither is nature. Perhaps restaurant-listings are. It may be that some things work better than others. But my real point was the silly breathless enthusiasm of a technology-mediated world without a hint of skepticism.
I have to wonder if the breathless enthusiasm in this article is the work of anything other than an internet marketer. I suppose technology and especially technology in the hands of early adopters does lend itself to proselytization and hyper-enthusiasm. But when there seems to be no skepticism whatsoever I have to think "marketer!"
How dumb does the author think real people are? Do you really expect that I'm going to be driving around with nothing to do but type "roast beef" into some sort of device? It's like web-surfing in 3D. Yes there are always some people who have plenty of time to do nothing more than surf the web looking for something interesting. But most people have a bit more purpose. Same thing in the new 3D web surfing world that the author envisions. Some people may have the spare time to just type in "roast beef" and see where it lands them. Most people will be a bit more purposeful and, if they should want a roast beef sandwich, would like to have some choice, like "Bill's Local RB" rather than the normal chain roast beef as someone else mentioned. So the examples are fairly unlikely and certainly unconvincing.
As far as that national parks I hate to see the day when such technology reaches them. I'm sure it already has, but I'm just fortunate enough to have missed it. It's bad enough to be walking in my local park, wondering why the person behind me is yelling at me only to realize that it's some nut on a cell phone who has decided that the park is the best place for a private conversation in a voice so loud that everyone else is forced to participate. In my experience most of those little folded pieces of paper from a national park that the author denigrates have plenty of information if you have the patience to read them. As far as anything else most of what the parks have to offer is right in front of you. Turn off your electronics and enjoy them. (Same thing with multimedia presentations in museums. The art can speak for itself if you only unplug yourself long enough to look at it.)
It seems to me that technology, rather than being the tool that it can be, for many has become an ersatz reality, a way to ignore or filter the world rather than directly experience it. That seems silly. I'm not an anti-technology luddite. But I hate to see articles such as this. As far as I'm concerned they are what give technology a bad name.
do you think there's some sort of connection between perl sigs and a preference for literacy over flashy effects, namely preferring book reading to slide shows?
next new trend: WEB -1.0.??
Drawing with a computer is not easy. Making visual crap without the slightest bit of visual sophistication on a computer is. Not knowing the difference is even easier.
The article in a nutshell and Reuters should be proud.
Not insightful, not even relevant.
............., ummm, not much, dullness I guess.
Drawing skills have no relation to handwriting skills. A word means the same whether that word is produced by ink and quill, primer typewriter, or wordprocessor running Linux and Abiword. However the visual representation of something is completely different. If you can't tell the difference between a Chardin still life and a grocery store advertisement for tomatoes then you're a perfect example of the lack of visual accuity and drawing skills that the article talks about.
I cringe at the lifelessness of many "drawings" that I see in many newspapers, magazines and online. If the prose was as bad as the drawings the people who produce such drek would hide their heads in embarrasment. But most managers don't seem to have much visual acuity anymore either so they don't know just how bad they look, or how lifeless they make their products. (And I happen to work at one such place.)
By contrast those publications that do include graphics with some sign of drawing skills stand out. I won't to into particular examples but take a look at a newspaper that produces drawn illustrations with one that uses cookie cutter illustrations from some program. One shows both liveliness and imagination, the other
As in many crafts automation has its appeal and when first discovered seems to quickly overwhelm the traditional craft. But eventually the novelty of automation disappears and only those who can't afford or appreciate real craft are happy with the automated version. The rest appreciate the real thing. It doesn't make any difference whether we're talking about bread, furniture, or drawings. Handmade crafts, or even automated crafts that build upon real knowledge of crafts, are almost always superior to those automated crafts.
and not smart enough to realize it, or how condescending it is to those you're paying "attention" to.
it's very easy to poke fun at this but it would be interesting to see someone forecast its effect in business. i only say that because business seems to rule and if it finds that it's no longer making money by betting on the need for ever more distraction then things might change. for instance the video sales pitch in the produce mentioned in another thread. at some point there will be a rebellion against this.
i've rebelled for quite awhile because it's just so stupid . i'd rather be engaged with the world and everything it it than always half-distracted. but that's just me. at some point i hope there will be a lot more people like me. and at some point business will say "uh, oh. people don't want this continual distraction. now we need to sell protective shields, or meditation chambers, or wirefree zones in cities where people can walk without any type of electronic interference."
time will tell. let's just hope it happens quickly.
in the grocery store. it's already got enough noise/video pollution to make me think i've stumbled into the game section of my local video store by mistake.
i have to agree with the person looking for some measurment to weed out advertising types at birth. maybe send them to school as taxidermists or something.
advertising is the bane of our age but many take it for granted, like a person who never realizes that not all people eat macaroni and cheese prepared from a box for every meal. there is more to life than clever lies from advertisers. i wonder if we'll ever escape it enough to see just how pernicious it is. my guess is no.
on the other hand maybe i can take advantage of it. anybody want to buy some "quiet?" i'll have commercials up next week...............
And one man's eye candy is another's glittery trash. I'm with you slashdot: looks fine as is, isn't cluttered with rubbish, and loads quickly. That's what a web site should do, along with have something worth reading ..........
I'm sure for some people computers are an addiction in the sense that they really do get very nervous if they can't get on a computer for their daily fix, whether the fix be email, internet, games whatever.
But for vast majority of people the internet is just like TV, another form of passive entertainment. TV gives us many dumb sitcoms but it also gives us sports, news talk shows, educational shows. They're all entertainment for various audiences. And people will get more back out of some than others.
My complaint about computers, which happen to be my job by the way, is that they're still pretty much a passive form of entertainment just like TV. So I get more out of reading a book than watching a movie, building a table than watching Norm Abrams show me how to build one, or going out birdwatching rather than watching a PBS show on it. In my experience active entertainment is always more rewarding than passive entertainment.
Though there are times when I don't really have the energy for active entertainment and passive entertainment is just what I need. But the problem with passive entertainment, whether it's computers or tv, is that it's very easy to choose more of it rather than get up and get involved with active entertaiment. Sort of like "you can't eat just one of them" in an old snack commercial. That gets a bit close to "addiction."
These are both very good books but they address two different audiences. Zeldman's book, which I've just finished reading for second time, is for more advanced html authors/designers. It addresses people who have been through the trials of browser incompatibilities and are looking for something better. As I said I think it's excellent. And his alistapart site shows just what great web design can be done using web standards.
But this book is for beginners. I just finished reading it. I didn't learn a whole lot but I did pick up a few things I had either never known or forgotten about. I may give this book to my wife who'd like to write some pages for herself. She's a complete neophyte. But I think this book is really geared to people like her. I believe one of the blurbs on the book talks about how refreshing it is to see a book that will start off new html/css authors with a foundation in standards. That I think is the real appeal of the book. It shows beginning authors how to use html/css using standards. And it does it in an entertaining and instructive way.
I wasn't particularly fond of Head First Java but I love Head First Servlets and JSP. The humor in this is quite a bit tamer but it's still a very good book for someone either just beginning html/css or looking for a basic review.
Bruce Eckel's "Departure of the Hyper-Enthusiasts" might be to your liking:
I don't think that it's harder at all to be legible in perl. It's just that unfortunately perl culture encourages illegibility. A great book that doesn't is Damian Conway's recent Perl: Best Practices. What a breath of fresh air to see someone say that perl ought to be legible. Sad to say I think that the things that brought perl to it's early prominence are also the things that have hurt it in the long run: the ability to do something complicated extremely quickly. Unfortunately this seems to have encouraged "clever" programmers, who use every clever perl trick in the book. All that cleverness has become part of perl culture.
Oddly enough I'm reading a book on Applescript right now (not because I really want to but because I need to write some fairly complicated scripts in it.) The book reminds me of perl in it's early days when it says how easy it is to do something or how Applescript magically does something for you, like understand whether you're in a string or math context. This seems good to beginners. But it the long run I think if lends itself to muddled code. There's just a little too much congratulations to each language for it's cleverness (and perl definitely is clever).
As far as Python goes god knows I tried to read either Programming or Learning Python but I just gave up. It just didn't hold my interest at all. Give me Java, or legible Perl any day!