No, if Google's motto had been, "We swear we won't do anything evil," it would be suspicious. "Do no evil" is an imperative, and suggests a code to follow, not a statement of something they are promising or not promising to do.
Hm, I don't know about "mainstream," but I think you're right that the DIY audience has grown tremendously just in the past couple of years, it's exciting:)
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of energy some people will expend decrying the works of others instead of making their own.
Jackson Pollock wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. Whether or not people like it--you, or art critics, or anyone--is completely irrelevant. He made something with conviction. Maybe you might try the same one day?
Har har, but that's not the idea. If only one of them is right it's not the average. I interpret it more like this: intuition is a product of subconscious information processing. The brain is a pattern-recognition machine, and is generally very good at that. I would hazard a guess that if you average out everybody's intuitions ("first guesses"), some of the people are "overthinking" things, but many are just going with their gut, and the pattern recognition and extrapolation that's going on constantly anyway in your brain is often onto something.
The "generate and test" idea is something I've made great effort to more consciously embrace in my creative endeavors. People decry "quantity over quality," but what I've found is that you simply can't just brood over an idea and "work on" the idea until it's "perfect" and then execute it--you have to create prototypes and test them, and the more you do this, the better you get at creating good prototypes in the first place. Still, it's remarkable how difficult it can be to convince yourself of this.
In a related story, it turns out the MySpace servers are powered by a train of mules turning a mill-wheel, and the IT staff consists of a pair of quadriplegic chimpanzees.
Seriously, MySpace is some of the worst software I've ever, ever seen:)
I can't tell if my reply to this earlier is displaying correctly; in case it is not, this reply was intended for this post:
Whoa there, tiger. You seem to be missing the point of my post: that most users don't know what an "executable" or "data file" is in the first place, and will likely not use the computer often enough to learn by exposure.
And I never said that there aren't bad interfaces. I personally think Windows has one of the worst, for the very reasons you describe.
It's still incredibly important that interfaces are designed logically and efficiently! But any interface nonetheless requires some degree of learning--"intuition" in interfaces is only, in fact, "familiarity."
Whoa there, tiger. You seem to be missing the point of my post: that most users don't know what an "executable" or "data file" is in the first place, and will likely not use the computer often enough to learn by exposure.
And I never said that there aren't bad interfaces. I personally think Windows has one of the worst, for the very reasons you describe.
It's still incredibly important that interfaces are designed logically and efficiently! But any interface nonetheless requires some degree of learning--"intuition" in interfaces is only, in fact, "familiarity."
It's not the interface's problem, it's the fact that 98% of computer users do not want to and will not learn anything about their computer. Some people will actively refuse to learn anything. So in light of that, the root of the problem is far, far deeper:(
Hm. The example you give doesn't sound that disheartening to me. I have a certain faith that the intelligent will grow more so over time, and that focus and attention are learned things that (sometimes) require a long time to really grow and appreciate. I know I can get excited and tangential (and off-topic) at times.
It's interesting that even though you more or less evenly admit that you don't understand why social networking is popular, there's still an implicit disapproval or condemnation of it. That attitude seems to be really popular here on this particular social network.
Zuckerman is neither a scientist nor a poet. He's young. He's young and came up with an idea that appeals to the young. The idea made sense to him and, lo and behold, it makes sense to a whole bunch of people in similar ages (and beyond--my grandma's beginning to see the appeal!).
Let's focus criticism on the implementation, not the audience. For the record, sites like Facebook and MySpace are only useful and entertaining if you have lots of friends and family on the site also (and even then may be of limited use for any given individual).
When you say "Dumb Luck," what you appear to actually mean is "an unexpected desire for a product by an unexpectedly large number of consumers." Luck may play a part, insofar as nobody can really predict with any accuracy the thoughts and actions of millions of whims, but I haven't seen any popular products whose popularity can't actually be explained. Just because you don't care for twitter doesn't have anything to do with why other people like and use it.
And by the way, I can't help but think that advertising--in any and all forms--would trump anything else as most annoying thing on the internet.;)
Yeah, it's really frustrating. I can't help but think that BT is so well designed exactly for this kind of application, and yet... ppptthh. I was all set to spam all my friends with links to participate in the download, try to throw my few cents in there, but nope, server's down. I mean, come on. Sigh.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, no one's mentioning the kind of scale we're talking about here: beyond big, beyond gigantic, into "WTF" levels.
"do no evil" ...
No, if Google's motto had been, "We swear we won't do anything evil," it would be suspicious. "Do no evil" is an imperative, and suggests a code to follow, not a statement of something they are promising or not promising to do.
If he's going for a career in professional performance art, then it'd be more appropriate to say he's got a felony on his resume. :D
Hm, I don't know about "mainstream," but I think you're right that the DIY audience has grown tremendously just in the past couple of years, it's exciting :)
Yeah, you know, there's just too much subtlety and variety in today's modern English. Not like that fast, efficient Newspeak.
Your post has nothing to do with good or bad grammar. You're just wasting even more words than you claim the OP was.
Whoa. The idea of "tagging" museum artworks with radioactive material sounds EXACTLY like a really good contemporary art piece! Thanks, YOINK!
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of energy some people will expend decrying the works of others instead of making their own.
Jackson Pollock wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. Whether or not people like it--you, or art critics, or anyone--is completely irrelevant. He made something with conviction. Maybe you might try the same one day?
Har har, but that's not the idea. If only one of them is right it's not the average. I interpret it more like this: intuition is a product of subconscious information processing. The brain is a pattern-recognition machine, and is generally very good at that. I would hazard a guess that if you average out everybody's intuitions ("first guesses"), some of the people are "overthinking" things, but many are just going with their gut, and the pattern recognition and extrapolation that's going on constantly anyway in your brain is often onto something.
The "generate and test" idea is something I've made great effort to more consciously embrace in my creative endeavors. People decry "quantity over quality," but what I've found is that you simply can't just brood over an idea and "work on" the idea until it's "perfect" and then execute it--you have to create prototypes and test them, and the more you do this, the better you get at creating good prototypes in the first place. Still, it's remarkable how difficult it can be to convince yourself of this.
If their total storage for photos now is 540 TB, what would it be with print-worthy resolutions? a handful of petabytes? :p
In a related story, it turns out the MySpace servers are powered by a train of mules turning a mill-wheel, and the IT staff consists of a pair of quadriplegic chimpanzees.
:)
Seriously, MySpace is some of the worst software I've ever, ever seen
Well, no, by deeper I meant "with society, culture and the education of that society/culture."
I can't tell if my reply to this earlier is displaying correctly; in case it is not, this reply was intended for this post:
Whoa there, tiger. You seem to be missing the point of my post: that most users don't know what an "executable" or "data file" is in the first place, and will likely not use the computer often enough to learn by exposure.
And I never said that there aren't bad interfaces. I personally think Windows has one of the worst, for the very reasons you describe.
It's still incredibly important that interfaces are designed logically and efficiently! But any interface nonetheless requires some degree of learning--"intuition" in interfaces is only, in fact, "familiarity."
Whoa there, tiger. You seem to be missing the point of my post: that most users don't know what an "executable" or "data file" is in the first place, and will likely not use the computer often enough to learn by exposure.
And I never said that there aren't bad interfaces. I personally think Windows has one of the worst, for the very reasons you describe.
It's still incredibly important that interfaces are designed logically and efficiently! But any interface nonetheless requires some degree of learning--"intuition" in interfaces is only, in fact, "familiarity."
Haha, that's precisely what some women are very, very good at.
It's not the interface's problem, it's the fact that 98% of computer users do not want to and will not learn anything about their computer. Some people will actively refuse to learn anything. So in light of that, the root of the problem is far, far deeper :(
Hm. The example you give doesn't sound that disheartening to me. I have a certain faith that the intelligent will grow more so over time, and that focus and attention are learned things that (sometimes) require a long time to really grow and appreciate. I know I can get excited and tangential (and off-topic) at times.
I'll see y'all fellow New Yorkers at the opening of the Whitney show! :D
It's interesting that even though you more or less evenly admit that you don't understand why social networking is popular, there's still an implicit disapproval or condemnation of it. That attitude seems to be really popular here on this particular social network.
The bottom line is that new generations bring new attitudes and ideas--I'm sure you know that, but we have to also admit that there's nothing inherently wrong with new and different attitudes. We could certainly decry a lack of enthusiasm for learning and erudition (I know I do), but show me any generation of "youth" in the history of humanity that has displayed that. It's an all-too-common generalization. Slashdot's get-off-my-lawnism ignores this. Every generation will have learnéd scientists and poets, and in every generation they will be a tiny minority.
Zuckerman is neither a scientist nor a poet. He's young. He's young and came up with an idea that appeals to the young. The idea made sense to him and, lo and behold, it makes sense to a whole bunch of people in similar ages (and beyond--my grandma's beginning to see the appeal!).
Let's focus criticism on the implementation, not the audience. For the record, sites like Facebook and MySpace are only useful and entertaining if you have lots of friends and family on the site also (and even then may be of limited use for any given individual).
When you say "Dumb Luck," what you appear to actually mean is "an unexpected desire for a product by an unexpectedly large number of consumers." Luck may play a part, insofar as nobody can really predict with any accuracy the thoughts and actions of millions of whims, but I haven't seen any popular products whose popularity can't actually be explained. Just because you don't care for twitter doesn't have anything to do with why other people like and use it.
;)
And by the way, I can't help but think that advertising--in any and all forms--would trump anything else as most annoying thing on the internet.
--Ted
I loved this line: "as easy to use and as addictive as any drug."
:p
I'm gonna have to disagree. Heroin takes way more work to use (and is far more expensive) and is thousands of times more addictive
--Ted
"Hi, I'm calling for a Point-Oh? First name Vee-Two?"
Snap!!
roflmao. thank you. X-)
Yeah, it's really frustrating. I can't help but think that BT is so well designed exactly for this kind of application, and yet... ppptthh. I was all set to spam all my friends with links to participate in the download, try to throw my few cents in there, but nope, server's down. I mean, come on. Sigh.