Let's face it I don't have to be a car mechanic to drive a car for my convenience so I don't have to be a CS graduate in order to be able to use my computer.
That's the most horrible choice of analogy possible. It's not horrible in being inaccurate (driving a car is a lot like operating a computer), but rather that it argues against the point you're trying to make. Drivers are a lot more educated in the their field than computer users are.
First, driving might not require you to be a mechanic but it does require knowledge of the topic. Last time I checked driving required a driver's license which one obtains by learning the basics of driving and passing a mandatory written and performance exam. If you haven't noticed, we still have a boatload of horrible drivers and accidents daily. Considering that computer users are not required anything similar, one can easily see why the problem is so much worse in the computer department. If, analogically, no one requires computer users to know the equivalent of brakes, right of way, or red lights, what can we expect?
Second, much like a car, your computer requires regular maintenance. If you don't put gas in your car or get oil changes your car will break. Hell, it will break even when properly maintained and things will have to repaired and replaced through wear and tear alone. Sound like a computer yet? Too bad most people are not even told about what they should do to keep their system running.
You're right in the regard that you shouldn't need a degree or be a specialist in the field in order to operate a computer. However, the point is that you still need some basic knowledge that at this point is not being taught/required by the average user - and that's where the problem stems from. A sufficiently qualified idiot will manage to break anything, especially Windows.
If you're arguing that a person should be able to turn on a computer, configure it, keep it secure, etc., and do this all from day one out of pure intuition then you're dreaming. You don't learn how to walk, talk or drive in a day. The process might be made a bit easier because they're ingrained into you because they're parts of accepted society norms that computers haven't reached yet. However, now you're looking at years of time spent learning and mimicing a system that is already in place and works. Most computer users never get anything similar other than "Well, Joe User uses a computer so I should too". Any of what you call intuition about what a user's first experience with a machine is based exactly on the biases experienced by observing other users. Just what is intuitive about clicking your way through menu's and odd naming conventions so you find the appropriately named final sub-menu tab, when you can do pretty much the same by doing an [ls/dir] on a directory? (I'm not saying that either is intutive from a total beginner standpoint.)
Next time, consider all the implications of your analogy.;)
Considering that situation, what if due to some weird meteorological phenomenon the rain washes away a pattern that looks like a swastika or some other inappropriate image? Are you going to call nature a racist and a vandal?
At least with clean graffiti it's easy to get rid of the image by cleaning the rest of the wall... something that should have been done in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the most horrible choice of analogy possible. It's not horrible in being inaccurate (driving a car is a lot like operating a computer), but rather that it argues against the point you're trying to make. Drivers are a lot more educated in the their field than computer users are.
First, driving might not require you to be a mechanic but it does require knowledge of the topic. Last time I checked driving required a driver's license which one obtains by learning the basics of driving and passing a mandatory written and performance exam. If you haven't noticed, we still have a boatload of horrible drivers and accidents daily. Considering that computer users are not required anything similar, one can easily see why the problem is so much worse in the computer department. If, analogically, no one requires computer users to know the equivalent of brakes, right of way, or red lights, what can we expect?
Second, much like a car, your computer requires regular maintenance. If you don't put gas in your car or get oil changes your car will break. Hell, it will break even when properly maintained and things will have to repaired and replaced through wear and tear alone. Sound like a computer yet? Too bad most people are not even told about what they should do to keep their system running.
You're right in the regard that you shouldn't need a degree or be a specialist in the field in order to operate a computer. However, the point is that you still need some basic knowledge that at this point is not being taught/required by the average user - and that's where the problem stems from. A sufficiently qualified idiot will manage to break anything, especially Windows.
If you're arguing that a person should be able to turn on a computer, configure it, keep it secure, etc., and do this all from day one out of pure intuition then you're dreaming. You don't learn how to walk, talk or drive in a day. The process might be made a bit easier because they're ingrained into you because they're parts of accepted society norms that computers haven't reached yet. However, now you're looking at years of time spent learning and mimicing a system that is already in place and works. Most computer users never get anything similar other than "Well, Joe User uses a computer so I should too". Any of what you call intuition about what a user's first experience with a machine is based exactly on the biases experienced by observing other users. Just what is intuitive about clicking your way through menu's and odd naming conventions so you find the appropriately named final sub-menu tab, when you can do pretty much the same by doing an [ls/dir] on a directory? (I'm not saying that either is intutive from a total beginner standpoint.)
Next time, consider all the implications of your analogy. ;)
This didn't go nearly as deep as I thought it would...
Considering that situation, what if due to some weird meteorological phenomenon the rain washes away a pattern that looks like a swastika or some other inappropriate image? Are you going to call nature a racist and a vandal?
At least with clean graffiti it's easy to get rid of the image by cleaning the rest of the wall... something that should have been done in the first place.