Magnus Berg:
And computer lingo, just like any other business, is of course filled with
lots of terms to make the language usable when discussing that business. Not
sure why you must insult us just for doing what everybody else does.
dmb says:
Okay, fair point. I don't know what you do for a living and so my complaints
are not aimed at you or your business in particular but I would extend the
"insult" to anyone who invents bad analogies in any business rather than
retract it for computer jargon. By the way, a friend of my wife's worked in
that field for a time and tells her that its literally true, that borderline
austic people have done quite well for themselves in the computer world and
have played a role in creating its jargon. Much of its meaninglessness stems
from the fact that we are also dealing with a lot of brand names, largely
generated by people in marketing and advertising. They are co-conspirators
in the murder of the english language.
I own a Mac, for example. This is a computer I use at home for personal
purposes and yet, because its made by Apple its not a PC, not a personal
computer. Huh? In what sense is it not a personal computer? Also, instant
messages are different from e-mail. Huh? In what sense is e-mail not an
instant message? I have all kinds of applications on my computer that remain
a complete mystery to me. Even after I've read the descriptions of what they
are, I still have no idea what how to operate them or even what they are
used for. And these things don't even have an instruction manual. You gotta
use it to get the instructions on how to use it. But even then, every
sentence seems to contain several terms that require a special glossary to
decode.
According to the "expert" I talked to on the helpline, my machine doesn't
even have a name. She insisted that its just a Mac and that's it. But, but,
but I have another machine that's 7 years old! Are you telling me that "Mac"
refers to both of them? Is there no further designation so that we know
which machine we're talking about? If that's true, its incredibly stupid and
if its not true then their helpline of experts is neither expert nor
helpful.
And of course desktop computers are for everybody over four years of age. I
understand that jargon is used by different kinds of specialists in all
sorts of fields. It saves time and such. But desktop analogies are something
that everybody has to deal with. They're in every school, home and business
and are otherwise NOT the domain of specialists.
As you may have gathered, I'm not too crazy about any kind of jargon. But in
this case we're talking about unavoidable jargon that unnecessarily
complicates every little task. And the Mac I have is apparently designed to
be an advertising machine. As soon as "safari" is opened it hits you with a
bunch of ads with links to their virtual store scattered here and there.
Imagine hearing a tire ad every time you start your car or a food ad every
time you open your fridge. Its ridiculous.
Not that I hold you responsible or expect you to defend this. I'm just
saying there are good reasons to be irritated and confused.
dmb
> dmb says:
> Good point. But there is also a very real sense in which analogies can
be
> right or wrong. We've all encountered them on standardized tests.
Metaphors
> are a little more complicated, but these too can be misleading or
helpful,
> good or bad. In this case, of course, the debate is not just about which
> image we like best. It about the best way to imagine a complex abstract
> concept, namely the evolution of everything, of the universe. As you
know,
> I'm saying concentric circles present a picture of the whole with
nothing
> outside while the tree fails because it requires an enviroment in which
to
> grow, suggesting that the universe expands within another universe
outside
> itself. This simply defies the meaning of the word "universe". It
suggests
> there is a pre-existing space in which space exists and that's just
goofy.
> Thus the metaphor just doesn't work.
>
> Did you notice how Case had to pretend I was making an argument for a
> staircase or a ladder in order avoid this point? Why? Because staircases
and
> ladders also need a pre-existing enviroment and so the switch inserts
the
> same mistake we find with trees. These are all flawed for the same
reason
> but the concentric circles rightly suggest no such externals.
But concentric circles do suggest that outer levels include all of the
inner
levels, and as Case and Platt discussed with a cell, this isn't true.
...which is why I'm gonna stick to my orthogonal dimensional view. It
doesn't
suggest anything, other than that they are completely orthogonal.
Magnus
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice.
Join Now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtagline
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
