TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. Com has the worst fucking control UI in the history of CS DATE: 29-Aug-04 02:25:18 HOST: sverige i like com. I don't think the whole concept of modal software is all that weird, but it generates a lot of usability frustration (as is seen with vi). a lot of what is considered usable and natural has to do with how the user has been trained. If s/he's coming from a textual, unix-ish environment, then things like modal commands are going to come more naturally. If the user 'grew up' on mac or windows, then the fact that simple tasks sometimes seem convoluted and needlessly involved in unix is going to generate frustration. it seems to me that mac os x does a good job of compromising: the gui is there for the simple tasks that will keep most users happy, but bsd is there under the hood for the more complicated os-manipulation that the 'more advanced' user will want to do. the option to implement a unix-like degree of control isnt really present in windows, which is perfectly fine with many windows users, who don't have a desire or need to tweak their OS into oblivion, because the tasks they consider important don't require it. Of course, this may be because windows use, over time, fixes the user's mind in such a way that it doesn't consider more difficult or interesting tasks (any os use effects the way one thinks about computers, just like a programming language -- 'unix/windows brain damage'). On the other hand, the option to do simple, non-programming tasks in unix with a click (or even a single command) can be difficult, which is fine for many unix users, who become fluent enough to do these things quickly regardless. it seems to me that fluent and intelligent computer use is manifested in keeping an open mind when it comes to software, and trying not to become acculturated (or at least realizing that you've been acculturated). every piece of software requires some adaptation. I'm convinced that notions of 'usability' aren't absolute, but are rather culture-specific (what a from-birth windows user thinks is usable won't be the same as what a from-birth bsd user thinks is usable). TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. Com has the worst fucking control UI in the history of CS DATE: 29-Aug-04 03:26:00 HOST: sverige >i dont care what OS you are on, or what 'philosophy' you use. You put the >most common commands as easiest to get to. This has nothing to do with >modality, unix, macintosh, etc etc etc etc. Even unix has 'ls' nice and >short because its used so often. yeah, maybe there are some universals there. What do I know? But I still think my point was valid: that what we consider 'easy to use' has more to do with acculturation than it does some realm-of-ideas notion of usability. but yeah, I do a lot more typing sentences than I do hitting r or w in com (for the most part, I think). Maybe it'd be easier to start in typing mode, and invoke commands when preceded by some character, like in PARTY. I'm used to com, tho, and I don't even think about the modal switch. I'm accustomed to adapting to computers, as opposed to forcing them to adapt to me. This is going to be easier, in the long run, because people are a lot smarter than computers. it isn't possible to engineer usability around everyone, because everyone has a different idea of what's usable -- ultimately, using a computer requires some thinking. getting back to com, I really don't see any big problems there.
Pretty much every interaction I have is solidifying the notion that I just don't like people very much. I was thinking about just writing in a diary, because frankly I'm getting tired of people saying 'i read your blog and blah blah blah.' actually, I think I'm too public. I don't have a clearly defined sense of self. Or maybe this is a good thing. It's hard, when one is given so many conflicting cultural philosophies to think about. But yes -- I give in to people too easily and readily, I am too open to the world, and I don't know how to conceal anything, or lie about anything. Again, maybe this isn't such a bad quality to have. But my main problem is that I'm not in control of my emotions.
Everyone is stupid. All science and philosophy is wrong. Give in to morax.
Maybe I'll try that diary thing, and then YOU won't get to read the really good stuff, hahaha, fucking loser. Die, motherfucker. I should post an enemies list.
TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: .. Computers suck DATE: 27-Aug-04 22:41:09 HOST: sverige >just out of curiosity what do you mean by deconstructing a computers >processes? hehe, uh oh. I didn't mean anything related to computer science. So, what is deconstruction? "I have no simple and formalizable response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question." -- jacques derrida that said, I usually take deconstruction to mean something like realizing that the imaginary borders we erect between things are purely imaginary, and have nothing to do with reality. I wrote an essay in what I think is commendably simple english on deconstruction, if you're interested (also bear in mind that since derrida invented/discovered it and seems unable to define it, what it 'is' is certainly open to interpretation). 0045.html#23aug04 computers thrive on distinguishing this thing from that thing, on the kind of quantized boundaries that both postmodern epistemology and eastern philosophy shake their heads at. You can't arrive at a clearer demarkation between 'things' than with binary architecture: 0 and 1. Trying to say 'these thigns are purely in our heads -- they don't really exist' is pretty futile, since clearly the computer is able to accomplish goals based on and because of this demarkation. so, computers are an interesting facet of reality where the one true nature of reality is confounded -- where 'things' really are distinguishable from one another. but really, this represents a bigger rift than just between computer science and the rest of existence. Distinguishing one thing from another and the general concept of quanta is pretty essential to science, and clearly science works -- some pretty amazing predictions can be made about how the world functions, and things like the SDF computers sitting in a little room in texas can exist. it sometimes seems to me that the rift between the scientific western mind and the spiritual, artistic eastern mind is unsolvable. but, what do I know? dada: everything is inherently silly, agreed-upon meaning is an illusion. Zen: everything is one, logic does not describe reality. Nihilism: all knowledge and communication are impossible -- logic (manifested in language) cannot describe reality. Also, all values and morals are baseless. Postmodern epistomology: deconstruction - there are no discernable boundaries to anything. Structuralism - something like platonism, actually...there is an abstract form that applies to different manifestations of content, and everything can be analyzed in terms of its structure. Post-structuralism - the platonism is sort of for shit, and you can't arrive at conclusions based on an absolute that didnt exist in the first place. Even the structure is subject to the same inconsistencies as the analysands. Also, is a nice bridge between western and eastern philosophies -- easier to wrap your mind around, sometimes, than pure eastern stuff. but since communication is impossible anyway, I'm going to stop here and go get some groceries. TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: gmail --> consumerism DATE: 27-Aug-04 15:12:48 HOST: sverige lusting after gmail accounts is born of the same impulse that causes many people to accumulate gigs and gigs of data on their hard drives that they will never use, burn dvds of movies just because they can, and buy/drive hum-vees. do you really need a gmail account? Examine the powerful impulses that are telling you that you must have one. I think in most cases, it's a good example of google's effective use of marketing muscle: they present these gmail accounts as something 'special' and 'hard to get,' and thus whip consumer desire into a frenzy. Google has managed to associate using their products with 'being smart,' which is a covetable marketing position. i suppose one could argue that one 'needs' the advanced searching and sorting capabilities, as well as the storage capacity. This is the goal of marketing: to convince you that what you want is what you 'need.' not to be presumptuous, but I think you've all been had. All of you have a perfectly functional, ad-free, shell-accessible email account with as much storage as any reasonable person will ever need. but who am I to tell someone what they do or don't 'need'?
I was just thinking a little bit about deconstructionism, and trying to come up with silly examples. Usually, the lack of the mental boundaries we use to divide up our reality is illustrated with statements like 'there's a fine line between insanity and genius' or even 'there's a fine line between men and women (consider the intersexed and the transgendered).'
Consider the statement 'there's a fine line between strawberries and whales.'
This implies that there is an object, somewhere, that isn't identifiable as either a strawberry or a whale. I'm looking at my mom's acoustic guitar next to me, and wondering 'is this object a strawberry or a whale?' what first comes to mind is 'neither! It's a guitar.' but this reaction is revealing -- one can similarly imagine the invalidity of any conceptual category. Consider an object that seems to fall clearly into a particular category, such as a strawberry into the category of 'fruit.' now, ask 'is this object a fruit or a vegetable?' the answer might be 'neither! It's a sweet-tasting configuration of atoms (STCA).' or, simply 'neither! It's a strawberry.' everything is what it is, essentially; every object has unique properties with which we can relegate it to its own unique category, a set of one.
Even two things as apparently similar as two strawberries don't have to be classified the same way. Perhaps one is larger, redder, sweeter, genetically engineered, or a space-alien pretending to be a strawberry so it can observe our earth's biosphere. In this case, consider the question, 'are these two objects strawberries?' the postmodern answer is something like, 'no! One is a piece of fruit that is 4cm long, and the other is a piece of fruit that is 3cm long.' deciding whether or not a object belongs in a particular category has infinitely more to do with arbitrary lines of mental demarcation than it does an understanding of the properties on that object. Why not call my mom's guitar a strawberry or a whale? It's made of wood, metal, and ivory, and is about a meter high, but that doesn't cause it not to be a whale or a strawberry, because what a whale or strawberry 'is' is open to inquiry.
If the two objects in question were more similar, and our example consisted of the statement 'there's a fine line between green tomatoes and red tomatoes,' a tomato with green and red patches on it, and the question 'is this object a green tomato or a red tomato'?, then we could still say 'neither!,' and follow that up with 'it's a tomato with green and red patches.'
Keep your mind on the tomatoes. If the option of creating a new category for 'tomatoes with red and green patches' was denied to me, and my only options were either RED or GREEN, then I'd have to make a decision based on closer scrutiny of the properties of the tomato in question. Are there more green or more red patches? If it's equally red and green, then I might check the hardness. Maybe they're equally hard. If things keep going in this direction, I'll eventually have to abandon induction, measurement and logic, and ask myself 'does it seem like more a green or red tomato?' -- I must query my intuition. Eventually, our ability to discern properties is going to break down, and another authority has to be consulted in order to categorize objects, which the western, anglo-saxon mind does obsessively.
In the case of the conceptual, archetypal, ideal strawberries and whales and the physically real guitar, if I were forced to classify the guitar as either 'strawberry' or 'whale,' I would have to examine its properties and determine whether they were more whale-like or more strawberry-like, based on my own notions of what a strawberry and a whale are like. Is the 'guitar' a strawberry or a whale? Or, if you prefer, is the guitar a 'strawberry' or a 'whale'? Either the guitar (the object) or strawberry and whale (the form) might be more real, and less deserving of scare quotes.
I'd say the guitar is a whale, but I'm not sure why -- possibly the shape (a big fat body and a neck that looks something like a tail). There's something to think about as you're drifting off to sleep: is a guitar more like a strawberry or more like a whale?
Categories, classification and naming often end up confounding the reality they seek to illuminate. I hope this was helpful -- I'm honestly not trying to confuse anybody.
I watched the olympics for the first time tonight, and I found that they were actually interesting, as opposed to any (most) other spectator sporting events that I've seen (stadium culture notwithstanding). I like the idea of countries engaging in sports to compete, instead of warfare. I think that's the whole olympic ideal, that goes back historically to sparta and troy or whatever.
It's no secret that sports are (for the most part) ritualized combat, especially in things like soccer, hockey, basketball, rugby, american football, etc, where the objective of the game is to gain territory or proceed towards a physical goal on a field. The olympics strike me as being extremely civilized, and their inception (in the late 19th century, I think) might have come along with some other global cultural enlightenments in art, literature and science, but I might be talking out of my ass.
Anyway, I think the olympics represent something the world should be, and hopefully can be or will be, if we make it past the next 200 years or so. It would be folly to try to squelch the fundamentally aggressive, competitive nature of the human animal with some intellectual utopian nonsense; instead, turn it into a game. I don't know about commercialization or if the olympics have changed for the worse, etc, but at least the core idea behind them is sound: provide a forum in which nation-states can rattle their sabers without chopping off any heads.
American sports are sort of strange -- football and basketball (less so baseball, which is just bizarre) are incredibly specialized, tend to encourage deformity rather than physical optimization, and have become more like pro-wresting and personality cults than anything like pure physical competition. However, sport really is a very cool thing, and I think the olympics are a good place to see that root-level coolness.
Also, there's the aspect of celebrating the human form (think ancient greece: naked olympics), which is a good thing if the human form actually does something similar to what it was intended to do, ca. Oldavi gorge (unlike waif-models selling underwear, etc).
Another really 'basic' sport is long-distance running. It's interesting to note that distance runners tend to peak in their 30s and 40s, and that distance running was a necessity for human survival in a hunter-gatherer environment (warfare showed up nascently too, and is analogous to soccer, hockey, etc, as I pointed out above). Distance running sounds like something that humans are 'supposed' to do -- if they aren't running down antelopes, they should be running around a track (or, if they aren't marching into gaul in legions, they should be playing futbol).
So, I guess I wanted to say that sports are good. I never really thought they were, because I grew up in canada and the usa where theyre little more than crass, commercial hero-worship and ritualized dances. But the supplanting of innate aggressive, competitive wiring into games as well as the celebration of human physical capacity are, I think, unambiguously good things.