[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers
cas at taz.net.au
Thu Aug 17 19:39:28 EST 2006
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:37:23PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 18:11 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > for instance, the scary thing about an average IQ of 100 is that it
> > means that approximately 50% have an IQ of *LESS* than 100. that's
> > seriously disturbing when you think about it.
> No, it's nt even slightly disturbing. It means that half the population
> is less intelligent than average; the other half is more intelligent
> than averae. That's what "average" means...
what's seriously disturbing about it is that about half the population
is actually quite stupid. THAT is what is scary. an IQ of 100 isnt
particularly bright, and 80 is classified as moron.
amongst many other scary ramifications, the words of the chaser team
spring to mind: "This person votes".
no wonder the world is so screwed up.
> > 2. so? do i expect neuro-surgical procedures to be optimised for
> > non-surgeons like me, or for joe average down the street? so why should
> > they expect their non-speciality optimised for them?
> There will always be tools that are dangerously sharp, and noone is
> suggesting they should be dulled. Tools designed for everyone should be
> fit for purpose and as safe and easy to use as is possibly consistent
> with their purpose. Even the specialists find such tools easier and
> better to use.
my point was that not all software has to be designed for everyone.
> > if i ever had to have brain surgery or, worse, was ever in a position
> > where i had to perform it, you can be sure that i would learn everything
> > i possible could about it, and not whine that it was too hard, that it
> > wasn't my speciality, so why should i be expected to learn.
> So we should have specialist word-processor users, and everyone else who
> wants to create a document should just give employ one OR devote huge
> amounts of time to learning how to use some Byzantine interface? That
> makes no sense, Craig, but it seems to be what you are saying.
no, what i'm saying is that if you have a task to do, you should learn
(at minimum) whatever it takes to do that task. whining that it's too
hard is not an acceptable option - if you cant do it, then get out of
the way and let someonw who can do it.
> Among other things, I'm a programmer, a kind of specialist. And I *like*
> long-winded informative error messages, tracebacks and debuggers with
> stupidly large numbers of options. I *like* GUI editors that refactor
> sensibly, that let me mark and copy and paste, that mark bad syntax and
> probable logic errors. I *like GUI interfaces to debuggers, that let me
> click breakpoints on and off and that hold my hand at every possible
> point. I do NOT want ever again to have to know what "ERR2" means. None
> of these features make the compilers and debuggers I use any the less
> powerful - in fact, they make them MORE powerful.
i've never once argued for LESS information to be provided to users, and never
will. quite the contrary, i've always argued for full and complete
disclosure of relevant information. that's one of the reasons i despise
Windows and other Microsoft software, it hides vital diagnostic
information and patronises users with meaningless pseudo-explanations.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
More information about the Link