[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers
Deus Ex Machina
vicc at cia.com.au
Thu Aug 17 20:09:19 EST 2006
really makes one wonder why you are a) a self proclaimed socialist b) concerned
about public welfare, public goods and public domains:
when you clearly dislike and look down on most people.
Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:
> 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)
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link