Re: pc takeover

On 11 Dec 2005, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<Xns9729A6092C540abcxyzcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nemo_outis wrote:

>Moe Trin wrote

>> No one expects to have to maintain their own car - but the various
>> states and insurance companies have managed to require that drivers
>> have some training and pass tests before being turned loose onto the
>> roads?

>No one expects to maintain his car *today!*

Beyond the most simple maintenance, people can't because they lack the
electronic tools to do so. There hasn't been a carburetor adjustment
possibly for several years - because "the computer" controls all that.

>For, say, the first 30 or more years after the automobile was available
>to the public maintaining one's car was a necessary element of ownership
>(for all but the very rich) - in fact, tinkering was half the appeal.

Up into the 1950s this was possible. In the 1960, it became much less
possible as more bells and whistles were added. By 1975, the emission
control stuff was so complicated that engine tweaks became difficult.

>The test for an operator's licence required the ability to make
>"running repairs" - a chauffer's licence required a considerably higher
>level of familiarity and skill. (My late father's chauffer licence,
>granted in the late 1920s in Montreal, involved extensive tests on
>mechanical aspects, not mere operation).

Most drivers today don't even know how to check the air pressure in tires
or how to check the oil level in the engine or transmission. If they are
even aware of that, they don't want to get their hands dirty doing so.

>Computers for the masses have only been around a little over 20 years -
>it is not all that surprising that they too require significant skill
>beyond mere operation if one does not wish to be a plaything of the
>vicissitudes of fortune.

Go find the remote control for your TV, VCR, and/or DVD player. Know what
all those buttons do? Most people have learned to keep the remote out of
casual sight after the cat walked over it, and suddenly they had sub-titles
in Klingon on the bottom of the screen, and no idea how to turn them off.

The technical gadgets of today, whether they be the home computer, the
new TV, or that automated coffee pot come with a booklet of instructions
that are next to useless - after all, this should be intuitive - and a
whole string of warnings about not doing ridiculous things like putting
the TV in the bath tub under running water. The warnings are in there
because the home appliance industry doesn't have the people conditioned
in the same way as the software industry. People expect that crashes,
malware, and lack of security is inherent with software. They do not _want_
to know that such problems are preventable. But when was the last time you
more than glanced at the instruction book - or is the TV still showing
those Klingon sub-titles?

>> Tell that to the computer industry. "No, No, No - any sheep can
>> operate one of our computers" - you see the results.
>
>The gullibility of the public may explain but does not excuse the
>charlatanry of the industry.

Who do you blame - the people for demanding an intuitive user interface
that "does what they want" (even though they have absolutely no idea
what that might be) that needs no training WHAT SO EVER to use? Or do
you blame industry for meeting that demand, even though they should know
better? Something as idiot resistant (I'm not going to tempt fate by
describing it as 'idiot proof') as a hammer can be used without a lot of
training. A computer is a bit more complicated. So is that chain saw
you mentioned.

>However, be that as it may, if one does not class oneself as one of the
>sheeple who are their prey it is necessary to learn how to do at least
>"running repairs" and perhaps even acquire the greater skills analogous
>to those of a chauffer in the early auto days.

Some one posted a comment that most people think themselves 'better than
average' drivers, and 'worse than average' computer users. Neither
statement can be true. The reason most think themselves as below average
computer users is that they can't believe that everyone else is as lacking
in computer skills. None the less, the computer doesn't catch fire each
time they touch it, so they see no need to obtain ANY additional knowledge
about it (or any other technical device)

>Such was my advice to the poster and I stand by it.

Most people need the fundamentals before they try the complicated tools.

Old guy
.

Quantcast