On Dec 25 2006 11:16, Randall R Schulz wrote: >On Monday 25 December 2006 07:19, Mathias Homann wrote: >> >> Now, imagine an internet where all users know what they're doing... > >How much do you know about the fabrication and / or the internal >function of these ordinary things or systems: > >- Automobiles
I'll answer: "Not much". (What do I care how things are designed?) However, I _know_ how to use a car, getting from A to B. I have almost no clue about the internal guts (C code) of Linux Memory Management, yet I almost instanly wrote a BSD kernel driver. The LDAP API is horribly undocumented, but maybe one day I manage to get done what I want. Have you ever tried the "Inferno OS"? Do so. Learn to play around while not screwing up. I have not driven a bus yet, but it's probably not fundamentally different. To run a helicopter, I might need to do a lot more RTFM and practice, but it can be mastered. What people lack is methodology. >If you happen to have access to The Science Channel >(<http://science.discovery.com/>), check out a program called "How it's >Made" >(<http://science.discovery.com/fansites/howitsmade/howitsmade.html>) >and you'll realize that specialization of knowledge in >fabricating "ordinary, everyday" objects and consumables has reached an >astonishing level. howstuffworks.com also has lots of data. >The point is, that it is _not_ up to users to posses in-depth knowledge >of a technology they're using. They cannot be ignorant of the >consequences of those technologies, lest we end up...oh, I don't know, >rendering the planet uninhabitable...but every little detail should not >be the responsibility of a technology consumer. That's the engineer's >job. If my water supply is out of order, I gotta call some technician to fix it. Right. So should users when they are unable to use the Internet. -`J' -- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
