What the hell are you talking about? I say that rather strongly, but I honestly have no idea what relationship your post has to mine, so if you wouldn't mind explaining, I'll be glad to try to answer whatever your question is.
Merely pointing out the stupidity of the parent's post - clearly, cleaning up pigs blood is more difficult then remove these LED signs - but the connection is the same type of connection in the parent's point - tenuous at best, and pointless because it detracts from the truth and is intended to deceive. See what I did there now?
That's pretty disingenuous. Writing propaganda these days?
"Arrest people who make signs with simple blinking LEDs"? Interesting description. Would you have a problem if I ran up to your house and poured pig's blood all over your porch? Why not? It's easy to clean up!
"many people in the USA have been arrested for pointing lasers skyward as well"? Oh, you mean the couple of people who were attempting to shine laser lights in the eyes of pilots of commercial aircraft, and readily admitted to it? If I shone a laser in your eye while you were driving, would that bother you? Do you think someone should be arrested for possibly f*cking up your vision for the rest of your life? How about when that process might end up killing you, and any number of your passengers?
I've heard b.s. "we are so bad we shouldn't criticize anyone else" and "Nazi Imperialist U.S.A." before - but I have to say - good job! If this post were a joke, I'd be very impressed. It's unfortunate that you probably mean it.
Have you ever noticed that lying for your cause doesn't actually help it in the long run? Let's fix problems honestly, shall we?
I agree completely that the end user is a good source of identifying problems. All my post was pointing out is that it isn't elitist to understand that the end user isn't usually a good source of identify the solution to a UI related problem. Is that really hard to understand? The chemist example is a good example precisely because you can't expect someone without a good education and skillset to design a solution to fix a problem with, for example, a floor cleaner that has trouble with a certain type of stain. OF COURSE they are the most likely to identify the problem, however - they just need help by someone trained to do the job, in order to fix the problem. That is NOT an elitist attitude.
You are ascribing things to my post that just aren't there. I'm not saying that you can't and/or shouldn't say "I don't like this about the interface" - or even make suggestions. I'm saying that there is actually skill, knowledge and talent that goes into good interface design, and most people don't have it. Therefore, while pointing out problems is GREAT (and it really is), and suggesting fixes might be marginally useful (if only to understand why the person is having a problem) - thinking that an average joe can provide the solution just as well as a trained interface designer is unlikely at best. Just like the average joe would be unable to pop into a chemist's lab and figure out how to make the cleaning solution work better.
See what I'm saying?
No, you can tell us that you don't like an interface, and make suggestions on what you think might make it better for you. Reality? The interface may suck - but that doesn't mean you have any idea as to why it sucks. Add to that? You're suggestions are not likely to be all that good for fixing the design problems.
A non-chemist can tell you that the floor cleaning solution doesn't work for them - and that may mean the solution sucks - and they can say "It should be able to do this" - but they can't tell you the way to solve the problem, they may be wrong as to what the problem is, and they may just be, period - wrong.
Is that elitist?
Shoot, I guess I didn't communicate what I was saying very well. My position is merely that to believe that an attacker won't hurt someone with their illegal weapon merely because they assume the victim has no illegal weapons is a mind-numbingly silly assumption.
Sorry, I haven't stated an opinion beyond that. However, I certainly like where you went, anyway.
I'm quite confused. When did I become vengeful? I was merely pointing out that saying that criminal would assume that those he/she is attacking is without a weapon merely because the law says they can't have one, when the criminal has a weapon, it a bad assumption.
Talk about idiotic.
Okay, I see what you are saying - and it sounds good. I guess that I don't feel the article is actually talking about that - it's not about using mass quantities of data to make theories, it's about mass quantities of data making theorizing and the scientific method unnecessary. What you are describing just means that we've got a huge, massive set of experimental data that can be mined (and then confirmed), leading to better experiments. Right?
I'm not positive I understand - are you saying that we've got a data source, in Google, for example, that isn't modeling reality - it IS reality, and that we no longer need to check in with anything else to get information FROM reality? Something like that?
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. And, sad to admit, I haven't read the Uplift series (bad me!). Can you expand on your thoughts a bit for me?
Just finished rereading the Foundation series for the one millionth time. Anyone remember some of the signs of the decay of the first empire? The idea that these "scientists" were no longer experimenting, no longer looking for new ways to do things - just spending their time looking at old books and old experiments and trying to squeeze a "new" thought or two out of them? That a sociologist would study a society through books written about it? An archeologist would explore the ruins of a world by reading descriptions written by someone centuries before?
Anyway catching the parallels here? The "search engine" is a great tool for gathering existing data - but our current tools help us:
1. Analyze that data
2. Gather more data
Can you honestly say that those aren't important anymore? The summary seems pretty crazy to me.
I remember when I was younger, going around with a handset with roach clips at the end of the wire, opening phone boxes and plugging in. It was always a bit of a surprise when we tapped an active line, but MAN! So easy to do. I don't know if things are still setup the same way these days - I know the phone boxes around here are locked - not sure if the same key opens all of them anymore, but yeah - easy to tap a phone line? Sure, as long as you don't mind sitting in the bushes! I'm sure there is technology that can make it easier than that, these days.
Oh, the above story? Not me, of course. When I say I, I'm talking about someone else I heard stories about, of course. I'd never do anything remotely approaching illegal, such as making long distance phone calls on other people's lines. That's crazy!
But if this is how you word a document of this importance, I'm not surprised it was ignored. Now, this might be written perfectly for an audience of one - and if that's the only person who read it, goody. Of course, if that's the case, it's unlikely to lead to wide spread changes. And I'm not defending those people who would read this, see the disgust and anger in it, and thus ignore it - but hell man, being professional does include being polite, writing for your audience, and being as objective as hell. Show object, factual data that you are basing your carefully considered opinions on. I've enjoyed reading through the document, and if I was on the project, myself, I'd be rooting for it - but I also wouldn't have a lot of respect for the professionalism of the writer, and I'd feel that, if the writer was specifically brought in to produce such a document, someone with more experience would have been nice. It certainly makes it more difficult to accept the opinions presented, when the presentation is lacking.
The point of requiring a citation is that it's expected the person making the ASSERTION has some backing for said ASSERTION. Telling people to "go find the data yourself - everyone knows it's out there" is clear and utter crap - after all, if everyone agreed, then no one would question, correct? And if you already KNOW where to find the data (after all, you KNOW what you are talking about, and how and why it's definitely a fact, correct), you should be able to shoot back your sources without any real problems. REAL sources, preferably. And, of course, if you shoot back B.S. sources, then either that person can discuss the problem with the sources (hopefully with some reasonable cites of their own), or ignore you for the crank you are.
Not so hard to figure out, is it?
Executable files have been completely blocked from outlook and outlook express for many years now. I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. It's non-trivial to open an.exe attachment in either program.
then the system isn't all that like ours. It may be better than any other one so far... but that's far from okay. Let's hope they'll be able to stop with the B.S. press releases and give us some real good news one of these days.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about? I say that rather strongly, but I honestly have no idea what relationship your post has to mine, so if you wouldn't mind explaining, I'll be glad to try to answer whatever your question is.
Merely pointing out the stupidity of the parent's post - clearly, cleaning up pigs blood is more difficult then remove these LED signs - but the connection is the same type of connection in the parent's point - tenuous at best, and pointless because it detracts from the truth and is intended to deceive. See what I did there now?
That's pretty disingenuous. Writing propaganda these days? "Arrest people who make signs with simple blinking LEDs"? Interesting description. Would you have a problem if I ran up to your house and poured pig's blood all over your porch? Why not? It's easy to clean up! "many people in the USA have been arrested for pointing lasers skyward as well"? Oh, you mean the couple of people who were attempting to shine laser lights in the eyes of pilots of commercial aircraft, and readily admitted to it? If I shone a laser in your eye while you were driving, would that bother you? Do you think someone should be arrested for possibly f*cking up your vision for the rest of your life? How about when that process might end up killing you, and any number of your passengers? I've heard b.s. "we are so bad we shouldn't criticize anyone else" and "Nazi Imperialist U.S.A." before - but I have to say - good job! If this post were a joke, I'd be very impressed. It's unfortunate that you probably mean it. Have you ever noticed that lying for your cause doesn't actually help it in the long run? Let's fix problems honestly, shall we?
They can't lose that reputation - their stuff doesn't "just work" now - but people still believe it.
I agree completely that the end user is a good source of identifying problems. All my post was pointing out is that it isn't elitist to understand that the end user isn't usually a good source of identify the solution to a UI related problem. Is that really hard to understand? The chemist example is a good example precisely because you can't expect someone without a good education and skillset to design a solution to fix a problem with, for example, a floor cleaner that has trouble with a certain type of stain. OF COURSE they are the most likely to identify the problem, however - they just need help by someone trained to do the job, in order to fix the problem. That is NOT an elitist attitude.
You are ascribing things to my post that just aren't there. I'm not saying that you can't and/or shouldn't say "I don't like this about the interface" - or even make suggestions. I'm saying that there is actually skill, knowledge and talent that goes into good interface design, and most people don't have it. Therefore, while pointing out problems is GREAT (and it really is), and suggesting fixes might be marginally useful (if only to understand why the person is having a problem) - thinking that an average joe can provide the solution just as well as a trained interface designer is unlikely at best. Just like the average joe would be unable to pop into a chemist's lab and figure out how to make the cleaning solution work better. See what I'm saying?
No, you can tell us that you don't like an interface, and make suggestions on what you think might make it better for you. Reality? The interface may suck - but that doesn't mean you have any idea as to why it sucks. Add to that? You're suggestions are not likely to be all that good for fixing the design problems. A non-chemist can tell you that the floor cleaning solution doesn't work for them - and that may mean the solution sucks - and they can say "It should be able to do this" - but they can't tell you the way to solve the problem, they may be wrong as to what the problem is, and they may just be, period - wrong. Is that elitist?
Shoot, I guess I didn't communicate what I was saying very well. My position is merely that to believe that an attacker won't hurt someone with their illegal weapon merely because they assume the victim has no illegal weapons is a mind-numbingly silly assumption. Sorry, I haven't stated an opinion beyond that. However, I certainly like where you went, anyway.
I'm quite confused. When did I become vengeful? I was merely pointing out that saying that criminal would assume that those he/she is attacking is without a weapon merely because the law says they can't have one, when the criminal has a weapon, it a bad assumption. Talk about idiotic.
The robber can safely assume that the victim is as unarmed as he/she is? Is that what you meant to say? 'Cause if not, check your assumptions...
Okay, I see what you are saying - and it sounds good. I guess that I don't feel the article is actually talking about that - it's not about using mass quantities of data to make theories, it's about mass quantities of data making theorizing and the scientific method unnecessary. What you are describing just means that we've got a huge, massive set of experimental data that can be mined (and then confirmed), leading to better experiments. Right?
I'm not positive I understand - are you saying that we've got a data source, in Google, for example, that isn't modeling reality - it IS reality, and that we no longer need to check in with anything else to get information FROM reality? Something like that?
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. And, sad to admit, I haven't read the Uplift series (bad me!). Can you expand on your thoughts a bit for me?
Just finished rereading the Foundation series for the one millionth time. Anyone remember some of the signs of the decay of the first empire? The idea that these "scientists" were no longer experimenting, no longer looking for new ways to do things - just spending their time looking at old books and old experiments and trying to squeeze a "new" thought or two out of them? That a sociologist would study a society through books written about it? An archeologist would explore the ruins of a world by reading descriptions written by someone centuries before?
Anyway catching the parallels here? The "search engine" is a great tool for gathering existing data - but our current tools help us:
1. Analyze that data
2. Gather more data
Can you honestly say that those aren't important anymore? The summary seems pretty crazy to me.
Do you take the same approach to Bush's decisions? "Don't blame Bush for the hysteria of the day"? Or is that somehow... different?
I remember when I was younger, going around with a handset with roach clips at the end of the wire, opening phone boxes and plugging in. It was always a bit of a surprise when we tapped an active line, but MAN! So easy to do. I don't know if things are still setup the same way these days - I know the phone boxes around here are locked - not sure if the same key opens all of them anymore, but yeah - easy to tap a phone line? Sure, as long as you don't mind sitting in the bushes! I'm sure there is technology that can make it easier than that, these days.
Oh, the above story? Not me, of course. When I say I, I'm talking about someone else I heard stories about, of course. I'd never do anything remotely approaching illegal, such as making long distance phone calls on other people's lines. That's crazy!
But if this is how you word a document of this importance, I'm not surprised it was ignored. Now, this might be written perfectly for an audience of one - and if that's the only person who read it, goody. Of course, if that's the case, it's unlikely to lead to wide spread changes. And I'm not defending those people who would read this, see the disgust and anger in it, and thus ignore it - but hell man, being professional does include being polite, writing for your audience, and being as objective as hell. Show object, factual data that you are basing your carefully considered opinions on. I've enjoyed reading through the document, and if I was on the project, myself, I'd be rooting for it - but I also wouldn't have a lot of respect for the professionalism of the writer, and I'd feel that, if the writer was specifically brought in to produce such a document, someone with more experience would have been nice. It certainly makes it more difficult to accept the opinions presented, when the presentation is lacking.
The point of requiring a citation is that it's expected the person making the ASSERTION has some backing for said ASSERTION. Telling people to "go find the data yourself - everyone knows it's out there" is clear and utter crap - after all, if everyone agreed, then no one would question, correct? And if you already KNOW where to find the data (after all, you KNOW what you are talking about, and how and why it's definitely a fact, correct), you should be able to shoot back your sources without any real problems. REAL sources, preferably. And, of course, if you shoot back B.S. sources, then either that person can discuss the problem with the sources (hopefully with some reasonable cites of their own), or ignore you for the crank you are. Not so hard to figure out, is it?
He asked for a citation - not more assertions. Got any CITATIONS? You know, verifiable facts?
Because it's irrelevant, and as such, clearly attempting to make a heated argument as it to why it is such a lazy, stupid thing to say?
Awesome! Thank you!
How many homes exactly ARE there in the United States? I always see "can power x number of homes", but it doesn't tell me out of how many.
Absolutely. I'm a bit surprised you can't see that for yourself.
Executable files have been completely blocked from outlook and outlook express for many years now. I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. It's non-trivial to open an .exe attachment in either program.
then the system isn't all that like ours. It may be better than any other one so far... but that's far from okay. Let's hope they'll be able to stop with the B.S. press releases and give us some real good news one of these days.
Anyone actually confirmed this? Checked it out at all?