For example: How much do you know about book printing?
I know how a laser printer works. In the post apocalyptic world, I can print books if I can acquire the necessary materials. I also know how to bind a book using the plastic thing and the clamp at the library.I can also repair the bindings of books that are bound with glue, or un-bind them with a microwave.
LOL. Scott, that is like someone saying, "I know how to plug in my computer, unplug my computer, open up a web browser, and save a document."
LOL. Scott, that is like someone saying, "I know how to plug in my computer, unplug my computer, open up a web browser, and save a document."
If I were given the job of running a book printing press, and given a complete instruction manual, how long do you think it would be before books came off the press? A couple weeks at most? They might be a little off at first, but I'd get it right soon enough, because I'd have means and motivation to learn.
Now imagine of the printing press had no manual. It was just one button "print book". I could push it as well as anyone, but if there's a problem I would have no fucking clue as to what to do. No means, or motivation to learn either.
When Apple computers and devices crash, you get no error message. They just smile or spin their beachball at you. Beware the printing press made by Steve Jobs.
Again, I point out that there are other options. Your point is moot when iPad isn't the only option. If the iPad failed, then a consumer could purchase another system and a manual. You really are cracking me up, old man Scott. ^_~
EDIT: Here is a more relevant example. A person can roast, grind, and press their own coffee or they can get an easy to use coffee maker and pre-roasted and ground beans for convenience. If the person wants to have more control over their coffee maker, then they can opt to do that and learn the process. If a person values the more convenient model then they can opt for that. If the "dumbed down" model breaks, then they can buy a new one, buy a better one, or opt for a completely other method making their own coffee.
If I were given the job of running a book printing press, and given a complete instruction manual, how long do you think it would be before books came off the press? A couple weeks at most? They might be a little off at first, but I'd get it right soon enough, because I'd have means and motivation to learn.
Now imagine of the printing press had no manual. It was just one button "print book". I could push it as well as anyone, but if there's a problem I would have no fucking clue as to what to do. No means, or motivation to learn either.
When Apple computers and devices crash, you get no error message. They just smile or spin their beachball at you. Beware the printing press made by Steve Jobs.
But there will be that open source printing press over there that will allow you to tinker with it to get it going again. It's not like Apple is making it so there are no complex devices out there.
Your lumping of means and motivation together is fallacious. You can have a "print book" button and a manual for trouble shooting. Just because you don't need to know how something works doesn't mean you're incapable of figuring it out.
It's not like Apple is making it so there are no complex devices out there.
No one made it, you have to build it yourself. But think of all that awesome printing press knowledge you'd gain!
Your lumping of means and motivation together is fallacious.
This. Many many many many people have the means to learn more about computing; however, their motivation is almost nonexistent.
How much do you know about yeast fermentation? You like to eat bread, right? You have no particular use for a full knowledge of how fermentation works; you just buy bread at the store and be done with it. Even a baker doesn't need to know how fermentation works at the biochemical level; they just need a rough working knowledge of how much yeast to throw into how much flour. Even beer brewers only need slightly more knowledge. You can go into great depth, but you often don't need it, and can make a fantastic product with only a bare functional level of knowledge.
Now, if you would argue that most people don't even have a functional level of knowledge when it comes to computers, that would be something a touch more reasonable. However, you need to recognize that, very honestly, the majority of people do not need to understand anything past the basic UI in order to make a computer work. The reason that anyone has difficulties learning a new technology, of any sort, is that they don't want to put forth the effort to learn any level of functionality. Most people want to acquire the tool, have it work with no effort, and be done with it. This is not new; this is old news in human development.
If you can't convince someone that they even need a working knowledge, telling them that they need a deeper understanding is useless.
EDIT: Now, the real question is: what is a sufficient level of working knowledge? My job requires me to be able to make spreadsheets and graphs in Excel. That's pretty basic. At no point in my career will I need to get more complicated than that. Should I bother learning how to make complex macros just because it might simplify some things for me? If I can do what I need to do in a relatively expedient fashion, then I have sufficient working knowledge. How many computer users have literally no working knowledge, and how many of them just have a very crude but functional understanding?
A lot of people know a few things about beer, but the vast majority of humanity doesn't know as much about beer as I do, and a few people know even more than me. Is my understanding sufficient for my purposes? Is anyone else's lack of understanding excusable? It's a highly subjective question whose answer often depends on the level of knowledge of the answerer.
Drinking beer requires almost no knowledge whatsoever. Animals can do it, because they naturally know how to drink. It might hurt them, but they can do it. Making beer does require some knowledge, although it does not require the incredibly advanced knowledge of how yeast ferments on a molecular level. That is not to say that said knowledge would not help in brewing, it just isn't necessary. Thus, the acts of consumption, creation, or even modification are accessible.
With computers, the acts of consumption require no advanced knowledge. Also, using a computer to create other non-computing things, like videos or documents, may or may not require advanced knowledge of those disciplines. But the knowledge required to create or modify computer hardware or software at all is extremely advanced. The vast majority of human beings will never scratch even the surface. Yet while beer and book printing are important, computers of all shapes and sizes control the global society. Computing dominates all aspects of our lives. No matter what your discipline, from farming, to defense, to printing, to lawyer-ing, to art-ing, computers are in charge.
Pretty much everyone is using a tool that very few people actually know how it works. Everyone knows how to, and does, use them, but almost nobody can modify or create them. Is that not dangerous? Apple is making it worse by creating models of that tool which are locked so that even those who are experts can not figure it out. Only Apple employees have access to the secret sauce.
With cars at least there are mechanics that you can go to, and you can go to any mechanic of your choice. With computers, there are almost no "mechanics". If they are any good, they are extremely expensive. With Apple there are no other options besides to have it serviced by the dealer. Apple has even gone so far as to create its own microprocessor, the A4, for use in its iPad. Thus, it is almost impossible for even us "wizards" to modify it in any way. This is extremely frightening.
And what is more frightening is how only those close to it can see the danger. Think about all those movies where one scientists can see how the experiment is going to have a very bad result because he is the only one who gets it, and then he's inevitably right and everyone get's eaten. This is not so dissimilar.
And what is more frightening is how only those close to it can see the danger. Think about all those movies where one scientists can see how the experiment is going to have a very bad result because he is the only one who gets it, and then he's inevitably right and everyone get's eaten. This is not so dissimilar.
Unfortunately in the real world a vast majority of those people are actually crazy.
I'm sorry Scott, I can't see your point because of all the fear-mongering in your post. The iPad is not the end of the world, nor is Apple. They have 4% market share and continue to struggle to grow that.
Let me ask you this, when was the last time you changed the air filter on your car? The spark plugs? The belts? What about the brakes? Would you even know where your distributor was? I'm willing to bet you answered no to most of those questions. Why? Because you bought a Japanese car, the "turn key to go" of cars. I know a fuck ton more about cars. Why? Because I've had shitty, unreliable cars that needed constant upkeep. I've changed spark plugs, and belts, and brake pads. I've also done much more advanced things like change suspension components and rebuilt brake calipers. I'm currently retro-fitting a manual transmission to a automatic car, my most ambitious project yet. After that I'll start changing camshafts and do computer tuning of the engine.
Think about all those movies where one scientists can see how the experiment is going to have a very bad result because he is the only one who gets it, and then he's inevitably right and everyone get's eaten.
There's a reason that only happens in the movies.
I understand where you're coming from, to an extent, but you're overstating the extent of the issue:
Pretty much everyone is using a tool that very few people actually know how it works. Everyone knows how to, and does, use them, but almost nobody can modify or create them. Is that not dangerous?
Is it dangerous that people use a tool for the handful of functions for which they need it? No. A well-trained chef can do nearly all the functions in a kitchen with just a chef's knife. The everyday cook probably has multiple specialized tools in their kitchen because they don't know enough about how to use a chef's knife to get full functionality out of it. This is not necessarily a problem.
We have people who specialize in certain fields of knowledge in order to make up for other people's lack of expertise in that area. It's simple human interdependence, and it's been around forever. The mechanic example applies to computers perfectly; it just so happens that computers are serviced by very, very expensive mechanics. That's the cost of owning a computer for the average consumer. You can reduce your personal cost by learning a lot about them, but it's not mandatory. If you have the resources at your disposal, then you have the means to fix your computer.
The actual problem users are not as common as you make them seem. The vast majority people understand how to use a computer for what they need them to do. You say "almost nobody" can modify or create or modify them, but is it that much significantly higher than the proportion of car owners to people who modify their cars for performance? I would say that the average computer user is like a typical driver; they might not know how the car works, but they can operate it effectively enough to accomplish their intended task without causing undue harm to others.
We have achieved the technological heights we currently occupy because of delegation and making things simpler. I don't need to know how the wiring in my apartment works. I flip a switch and the light comes on without me having to hook a bunch of things up every time I need light. The time I save by not learning how to do wiring and having someone else set up the wiring is time that I can spend doing other things in my own area of expertise.
If I had to spend all my time performing the basic, low-level tasks that are required to keep everything in my life maintained, I would not have time for things like school or work. It's the reason people hire other people to do things for them. We have plumbers, auto mechanics, computer technicians, and government officials that are paid to do things so that every person doesn't have to learn the same specialized knowledge. In fact, isn't that the whole basis of our society?
Yes, if people are all using a tool then they should all have a working knowledge of how to use the tool in the way they need to use it. However, asserting that every person should learn basic programming skills simply because they use Word on a regular basis is completely contrary to the way our society works. Not to mention that if everyone knew how to use their computers to that level, many technology workers would be out of a job. If you had to learn how every tool you use worked to the level you are asserting people should know computers, you'd have very little time for things like conventions or recording podcasts. Those who came before us made developments and developed user-friendly technology for exactly that purpose; if you can skip the first 10 miles, a marathon takes a lot less time, leaving time for other work or research.
Different people specialize in different things. Our society functions as a team. Some people aren't great with computers, and other people aren't great at fixing leaky pipes. That's why we call a computer specialist or a plumber. If Mad Max happens, a lot of people who are not basically self-sufficient are probably going to get eaten. However, I don't think that knowing C is going to help them with that. Perhaps we should all invest our time in learning how to fashion weapons with materials found in the forest, since that is all that is going to matter when society collapses and we no longer work as a team.
Let me ask you this, when was the last time you changed the air filter on your car? The spark plugs? The belts? What about the brakes? Would you even know where your distributor was? I'm willing to bet you answered no to most of those questions.
Well, no, probably not. Only one of those was actually a yes or no question... ^_~
Fun fact: Cars are going the way of the iPad. Porsche has some cars with sealed engine compartments, Ferraris have long been dealer-seviceable only, and the BMW 5 series has an engine block entirely inaccessible to the owner. For that BMW, all diagnostics are fed to the computer on its console, and the only accessible and user-serviceable "parts" are the battery and fluids. There's not even a dipstick; that's all electronic now.
Well I don't care for it, thus your argument is invalid and you're wrong!
The only answer to this is certainly fisticuffs!
On a more serious note, I find it intriguing that cars that require a huge amount of skill to drive are the ones stripping away the need for users to fiddle about beneath the hood. Maybe BMW is on to something...They did invent the motorcycle. I'm apt to trust them.
Why is it so terrifying to have an industry of people that specialize in a field in order to ensure that when someone needs to do something more complex with computing or to fix an issue with the computer that those needs can be met? We have electricians, vets, engineers, designers, architects, auto mechanics, etc. to help out the masses with any expert work or knowledge that the majority of people do not have the means or interest to have acquired themselves. Why must computers be different?
Well I don't care for it, thus your argument is invalid and you're wrong!
The only answer to this is certainly fisticuffs!
Clearly!
Maybe BMW is on to something...They did invent the motorcycle. I'm apt to trust them.
No you fool, they're bringing about automotive doom to us all, DOOM!!!
Also Porsche engine bays are sealed because of the place they install the engine, as near to the ground as they can get it. And most manufacturers ship there cars plastic coverings on the engine. The idea being that 99% of the customers have no idea what any of it is, so they'll just muck it up if they touch it anyway. My car had one that was particularly amusing because due to a design flaw the cover would slowly cut into the brake booster line. This would render your brake servo non-functional and leave a massive vacuum leak. Needless to say, my car no longer has that cover.
Why is it so terrifying to have an industry of people that specialize in a field in order to ensure that when someone needs to do something more complex with computing or to fix an issue with the computer that those needs can be met? We have electricians, vets, engineers, designers, architects, auto mechanics, etc. to help out the masses with any expert work or knowledge that the majority of people do not have the means or interest to have acquired themselves. Why must computers be different?
This seems logical. The iPad is like the Smartcar of automobiles. The netbook? Maybe a little Fiat, or a Honda Fit, or something. Then you scale up until you have your Lamborghinis, those full-tower phase-change cooled monstrosities built by manic overclockers. Just like with cars, as your device's power increases, so too would your knowledge of the intricate workings within.
Pretty much everyone is using a tool that very few people actually know how it works. Everyone knows how to, and does, use them, but almost nobody can modify or create them. Is that not dangerous? Apple is making it worse by creating models of that tool which are locked so that even those who are experts can not figure it out. Only Apple employees have access to the secret sauce.
You can say the same for pharmaceutical companies, yet you don't complain, you just take your medicine and be done with it.
You can say the same for pharmaceutical companies, yet you don't complain, you just take your medicine and be done with it.
Insightful. Most people don't have the capability to understand the level on which their medications work, and there are a few medicines whose mechanisms are just plain unknown even to their researchers. However, I don't think the world is worse for wear.
I don't take anything if I don't know a fuck ton about it. Ask people. I won't even take Tylenol for a headache. I'll just suffer.
Say someone's an epileptic. They have gone through all other options, and can either take a drug like ethosuximide, a drug which we are still confused about as to its mechanism of action, or continue having seizures.
I don't take anything if I don't know a fuck ton about it. Ask people. I won't even take Tylenol for a headache. I'll just suffer.
Who is the fool, someone that refuses treatment in favor of homeopathy because they believe in it or someone that knows that the science behind the medicine is good yet he refuses to take it?
I don't take anything if I don't know a fuck ton about it. Ask people. I won't even take Tylenol for a headache. I'll just suffer.
Yes, and we think you're a goddamn idiot for doing so. That's about as reasonable as someone refusing to vaccinate their child because it might have some negative side effects.
Would you apply that same reasoning to the food you buy? Do you really know where your food comes from? How about its safety? Microbial levels? Where do you draw the line and why?
You can say the same for pharmaceutical companies, yet you don't complain, you just take your medicine and be done with it.
I don't take anything if I don't know a fuck ton about it. Ask people. I won't even take Tylenol for a headache. I'll just suffer.
That is a fine decision for headaches; however, if someone has cancer, there is such a level of complexity that even multiple discussions with doctors, lots of research, etc. essentially it would be impossible to know about all possible treatments including the finer points of various drugs or drug combinations over others, all aspects of how the cancer might mutate, etc. within a reasonable window of time to actually quickly respond to the threat. Thus, we have doctors that make recommendations to narrow down our options for us based on their vastly superior body of knowledge. We can seek out the advice of several doctors and do some cursory research on the Internet, but - essentially - we have to make a relatively uneducated guess and follow the doctor's advice or die. Why shouldn't the majority of people consult with technological experts like they would doctors or auto mechanics?
If we did, they'd be at the level of cars, and everything would generally work out. Right now, they're still wizard machines maintained by wizards.
To most people, cars are pretty much wizard-level magic. They get in, they drive, the put fuel in, etc, but they can't really tell you how it works, or repair it if it breaks.
Simply, to most people, it's like this Fuel+Engine+some vague magic with words like crankshaft, internal combustion, pistions and spark plugs = Drive places! Electricity+Computer+some vauge magic with words like CPU, Graphics card, Ram, and hard-drive = Go places on the internet and make spreadsheets!
I know how a laser printer works. In the post apocalyptic world, I can print books if I can acquire the necessary materials. I also know how to bind a book using the plastic thing and the clamp at the library.I can also repair the bindings of books that are bound with glue, or un-bind them with a microwave.
I love how there is the implicit assumption that the knowledge of how to un-bind a book in a microwave will be useful in an post apocalyptic world where you'd have to build a printer to print books.
Comments
Now imagine of the printing press had no manual. It was just one button "print book". I could push it as well as anyone, but if there's a problem I would have no fucking clue as to what to do. No means, or motivation to learn either.
When Apple computers and devices crash, you get no error message. They just smile or spin their beachball at you. Beware the printing press made by Steve Jobs.
You really are cracking me up, old man Scott. ^_~
EDIT: Here is a more relevant example. A person can roast, grind, and press their own coffee or they can get an easy to use coffee maker and pre-roasted and ground beans for convenience. If the person wants to have more control over their coffee maker, then they can opt to do that and learn the process. If a person values the more convenient model then they can opt for that. If the "dumbed down" model breaks, then they can buy a new one, buy a better one, or opt for a completely other method making their own coffee.
How much do you know about yeast fermentation? You like to eat bread, right? You have no particular use for a full knowledge of how fermentation works; you just buy bread at the store and be done with it. Even a baker doesn't need to know how fermentation works at the biochemical level; they just need a rough working knowledge of how much yeast to throw into how much flour. Even beer brewers only need slightly more knowledge. You can go into great depth, but you often don't need it, and can make a fantastic product with only a bare functional level of knowledge.
Now, if you would argue that most people don't even have a functional level of knowledge when it comes to computers, that would be something a touch more reasonable. However, you need to recognize that, very honestly, the majority of people do not need to understand anything past the basic UI in order to make a computer work. The reason that anyone has difficulties learning a new technology, of any sort, is that they don't want to put forth the effort to learn any level of functionality. Most people want to acquire the tool, have it work with no effort, and be done with it. This is not new; this is old news in human development.
If you can't convince someone that they even need a working knowledge, telling them that they need a deeper understanding is useless.
EDIT: Now, the real question is: what is a sufficient level of working knowledge? My job requires me to be able to make spreadsheets and graphs in Excel. That's pretty basic. At no point in my career will I need to get more complicated than that. Should I bother learning how to make complex macros just because it might simplify some things for me? If I can do what I need to do in a relatively expedient fashion, then I have sufficient working knowledge. How many computer users have literally no working knowledge, and how many of them just have a very crude but functional understanding?
A lot of people know a few things about beer, but the vast majority of humanity doesn't know as much about beer as I do, and a few people know even more than me. Is my understanding sufficient for my purposes? Is anyone else's lack of understanding excusable? It's a highly subjective question whose answer often depends on the level of knowledge of the answerer.
With computers, the acts of consumption require no advanced knowledge. Also, using a computer to create other non-computing things, like videos or documents, may or may not require advanced knowledge of those disciplines. But the knowledge required to create or modify computer hardware or software at all is extremely advanced. The vast majority of human beings will never scratch even the surface. Yet while beer and book printing are important, computers of all shapes and sizes control the global society. Computing dominates all aspects of our lives. No matter what your discipline, from farming, to defense, to printing, to lawyer-ing, to art-ing, computers are in charge.
Pretty much everyone is using a tool that very few people actually know how it works. Everyone knows how to, and does, use them, but almost nobody can modify or create them. Is that not dangerous? Apple is making it worse by creating models of that tool which are locked so that even those who are experts can not figure it out. Only Apple employees have access to the secret sauce.
With cars at least there are mechanics that you can go to, and you can go to any mechanic of your choice. With computers, there are almost no "mechanics". If they are any good, they are extremely expensive. With Apple there are no other options besides to have it serviced by the dealer. Apple has even gone so far as to create its own microprocessor, the A4, for use in its iPad. Thus, it is almost impossible for even us "wizards" to modify it in any way. This is extremely frightening.
And what is more frightening is how only those close to it can see the danger. Think about all those movies where one scientists can see how the experiment is going to have a very bad result because he is the only one who gets it, and then he's inevitably right and everyone get's eaten. This is not so dissimilar.
Let me ask you this, when was the last time you changed the air filter on your car? The spark plugs? The belts? What about the brakes? Would you even know where your distributor was? I'm willing to bet you answered no to most of those questions. Why? Because you bought a Japanese car, the "turn key to go" of cars. I know a fuck ton more about cars. Why? Because I've had shitty, unreliable cars that needed constant upkeep. I've changed spark plugs, and belts, and brake pads. I've also done much more advanced things like change suspension components and rebuilt brake calipers. I'm currently retro-fitting a manual transmission to a automatic car, my most ambitious project yet. After that I'll start changing camshafts and do computer tuning of the engine.
Now am I better because I can work on my car?
I understand where you're coming from, to an extent, but you're overstating the extent of the issue: Is it dangerous that people use a tool for the handful of functions for which they need it? No. A well-trained chef can do nearly all the functions in a kitchen with just a chef's knife. The everyday cook probably has multiple specialized tools in their kitchen because they don't know enough about how to use a chef's knife to get full functionality out of it. This is not necessarily a problem.
We have people who specialize in certain fields of knowledge in order to make up for other people's lack of expertise in that area. It's simple human interdependence, and it's been around forever. The mechanic example applies to computers perfectly; it just so happens that computers are serviced by very, very expensive mechanics. That's the cost of owning a computer for the average consumer. You can reduce your personal cost by learning a lot about them, but it's not mandatory. If you have the resources at your disposal, then you have the means to fix your computer.
The actual problem users are not as common as you make them seem. The vast majority people understand how to use a computer for what they need them to do. You say "almost nobody" can modify or create or modify them, but is it that much significantly higher than the proportion of car owners to people who modify their cars for performance? I would say that the average computer user is like a typical driver; they might not know how the car works, but they can operate it effectively enough to accomplish their intended task without causing undue harm to others.
If I had to spend all my time performing the basic, low-level tasks that are required to keep everything in my life maintained, I would not have time for things like school or work. It's the reason people hire other people to do things for them. We have plumbers, auto mechanics, computer technicians, and government officials that are paid to do things so that every person doesn't have to learn the same specialized knowledge. In fact, isn't that the whole basis of our society?
Yes, if people are all using a tool then they should all have a working knowledge of how to use the tool in the way they need to use it. However, asserting that every person should learn basic programming skills simply because they use Word on a regular basis is completely contrary to the way our society works. Not to mention that if everyone knew how to use their computers to that level, many technology workers would be out of a job. If you had to learn how every tool you use worked to the level you are asserting people should know computers, you'd have very little time for things like conventions or recording podcasts. Those who came before us made developments and developed user-friendly technology for exactly that purpose; if you can skip the first 10 miles, a marathon takes a lot less time, leaving time for other work or research.
Different people specialize in different things. Our society functions as a team. Some people aren't great with computers, and other people aren't great at fixing leaky pipes. That's why we call a computer specialist or a plumber. If Mad Max happens, a lot of people who are not basically self-sufficient are probably going to get eaten. However, I don't think that knowing C is going to help them with that. Perhaps we should all invest our time in learning how to fashion weapons with materials found in the forest, since that is all that is going to matter when society collapses and we no longer work as a team.
Is this a bad thing? Absolutely not.
On a more serious note, I find it intriguing that cars that require a huge amount of skill to drive are the ones stripping away the need for users to fiddle about beneath the hood. Maybe BMW is on to something...They did invent the motorcycle. I'm apt to trust them.
Also Porsche engine bays are sealed because of the place they install the engine, as near to the ground as they can get it. And most manufacturers ship there cars plastic coverings on the engine. The idea being that 99% of the customers have no idea what any of it is, so they'll just muck it up if they touch it anyway. My car had one that was particularly amusing because due to a design flaw the cover would slowly cut into the brake booster line. This would render your brake servo non-functional and leave a massive vacuum leak. Needless to say, my car no longer has that cover.
What would you recommend?
Would you apply that same reasoning to the food you buy? Do you really know where your food comes from? How about its safety? Microbial levels? Where do you draw the line and why?
Why shouldn't the majority of people consult with technological experts like they would doctors or auto mechanics?
Simply, to most people, it's like this
Fuel+Engine+some vague magic with words like crankshaft, internal combustion, pistions and spark plugs = Drive places!
Electricity+Computer+some vauge magic with words like CPU, Graphics card, Ram, and hard-drive = Go places on the internet and make spreadsheets! I love how there is the implicit assumption that the knowledge of how to un-bind a book in a microwave will be useful in an post apocalyptic world where you'd have to build a printer to print books.