Archive for the ‘philosophy’ category

i(Tunes | Pod) deficiency or Deserves a Pizza #2

July 31st, 2009

Apple, the reigning champion of “intuitive” design, strikes again has another winner.

“Podcast” is a useless, branded neologism for audio files that come out on a regular basis.  Nevertheless, audio files that come out on a regular basis are enjoyable.  I “subscribe” to the Dave Ramsey “podcast.”  I also bike to work.  Those may seem unrelated, but in fact the latter is the cause of the former.

Biking to work falls into the high-risk class of activities, but is closer to the moderate-risk class than, say, sky diving without a parachute.  Folks who don’t bike to work don’t much notice those who do. I’m all for live and let live, but this lack of attention can sometimes break that pattern for bikers.  The point is that just how a pregnant woman has to eat for 2, I have to pay attention for 2, or 3, or 4, depending on how many motorized vehicles cross my path during my commute.  That payment of attention only requires a visual debit, leaving many spare brain cycles during which my mind sits idle.  I like to fill that with sound.  Sound where I learn something is even better.

Enter audio files that come out regularly.  But sometimes I don’t listen to the Dave Ramsey audio files that come out on a regular basis, giving me a backlog.  This means that there’s more than that I haven’t heard.  Now, the genius of mp3 players is that they hold more than 1 song, and mp3 players can, generally, play all their contents without user attention between each track.

Enter the iPod.

Audio files that come out regularly are a magical class of audio file for the iPod.  The iPod, by default, cannot play 1 such audio file and then go on to the next without user interaction.  In fact, at the end of 1 such track, it repeats the same track, even though the menu is showing a list of all availabe Dave Ramsey audio files that come out on a regular basis.  Now, I realize that desiring this feature just means I’m using the iPod wrong, because only holiness emanates from Cupertino.  Nonetheless, academic freedom dictates that I must challenge such dogmas and question all authority.

Assuming all cows are perfect spheres, this as a default behavior makes perfect sense.  And it gets better!  If we define “intuitive” as “difficult” or “requires somewhere-above-average-but-less-than-expert knowledge of system to use,” then Apple has provided an intuitive way to overcome this problem.  This blog post describes the solution.  I mean, who wouldn’t have thought to create a “Smart Playlist” to do something so basic complicated as playing the next track?  Who actually uses their mp3 player that way anyway?

However, if not all cows are, in fact, perfect spheres and we define “intuitive” the same way that Merriam-Webster does, then to get the next track to play, one should just have the next track on the device.  Ergo, this is an Apple fail.

Conclusions:

  1. danandchoka deserve a pizza.
  2. The fact that goole has just over 400k hits for “ipod podcast play next” seems to indicate that I’m not alone in this problem.

Besides venting another Apple-related spleen, I wrote this post to bump up danandchoka’s post.  I really did appreciate finding the answer to this problem.

No comments »

Posted in Apple, Deserves a pizza, philosophy, rant, software

Tags:

use != utilize

July 3rd, 2009

Today Dell upset my homeostasis.  I quote from Dell’s product information on their 30″ LCD:

“To fully utilize your new 3007WFP-HC monitor and enjoy the ultra-high resolution settings…”
(see http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7175)

“Utilize” is not the more formal/pretentious form of the word “use,” even though swarms of would-be writers utilize it as such.  No, “use” means “the act or practice of employing something.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use) “Utilize” means “turn to practical use or account.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilize)

Thus we see that “utilize” is a special case of “use.”  In a similar manner, “cat” is a special case of “useless 4-legged animal,” which is in turn a special case of “4-legged animal,” which is a special case of “animal,” and so forth.  All cats are 4-legged animals, but not all 4-legged animals are cats (as an example, see “dog,” which is a special case of “useful 4-legged animal”).  Similarly, one can bludgeon a sentence and use “use” wherever “utilize” is appropriate, but some meaning is lost. One cannot, however, utilize “utilize” wherever “use” is used, because the former is just not up to the task.

So when is it appropriate to use “utilize?”  Whenever one doesn’t have to utilize “utilize.”  As the dictionary points out, “utilize” brings with it the connotation of being used for something other than its original purpose.  You cannot, for example, utilize a hammer to drive in a nail.  Since hammers were made for that purpose, driving in a nail with a hammer is an example of “using” a hammer, not “utilizing” it.*  In a pinch however, one could utilize a wrench to drive in a nail.  As a further example, one can very well utilize a Macintosh computer to accomplish serious work.

If you’re still here after all this time, you may wonder what this has to do with Dell.  Well, they say, “To fully utilize your blah blah blah.”  First, since I haven’t purchased it, it isn’t mine.  Second, what does it even mean “to fully utilize?”  “Fully” would imply that there is some intended level of use.  But since I’m utilizing it, I’m using it for something other than what it was intended– some other use that I came up with.  Well, how would they know if I’m fully using something when they haven’t even come up with the use?  I fail to see how Dell is the authority on whether or not I’m succeeding in some tangential use of their product.  Thus, I am left spinning in an irreducible cloud of logic, which frankly irritates me to the point that I will not be purchasing the 30″ Dell LCD any time soon.

Why does this even matter?

“Clear language engenders clear thought,” wrote Richard Mitchell in his masterpiece The Graves of Academe.  As human beings we really can’t function and explore the full potential of our existence without one another.  We accomplish more in society than we’d be able to individually.  The trouble is that we aren’t mind-melded in the same way that Vulcans can be.  Our sole means of communication is translating our thoughts to words and communicating those words to another who must the re-translate those words into thoughts.  At each step of that process, intent is lost.  Words mean different things to different people (see discussion of “cat” and “dog” above).  And it is through words that we teach brain surgeons to be brain surgeons, for example.  Since we’re already at an inherent disadvantage, we ought to labor to use clear language.  This sort of thing can cost lives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability#Linguistics:_Flammable_vs._inflammable).

I concede that “use” vs. “utilize” will probably not kill anyone; I am unable to contrive an example.  But 1 cigarette won’t kill you either.

* -  Sledge hammers are an exception, but note that they are a special case of hammer.

No comments »

Posted in Grammar, philosophy, rant

Tags:

conservative !-> not helping people

September 18th, 2008

Yesterday I was listening to Bill O’Reilly.  I like to listen to/read a variety of opinions– part of being informed.  And yes, I realize radio is superficial.  I don’t really have the time to read articles during my work hours.

I digress.  Anyway, a few weeks ago O’Reilly proposed that the Oil Companies donate 2% of their net profits to a fund that they manage to help people who are having trouble paying for energy.  I think that’s a great idea.

A caller posed a a question along the lines of, “How is that any different than windfall profit taxes and redistribution?”  O’Reilly’s answer was, “Because it’s voluntary.”

And therein lies everything!  O’Reilly doesn’t bill (ha) himself as a “conservative.”  Yet what he says sums up my attitude towards charitable giving.  I’m a staunch supporter, nigh unto religious-zealot-adherent, of individual liberty.  I interpret my faith in such a way that this is a theological issue.  Forcing someone to do the right thing really doesn’t have a place in my view of the world.

But something that DOES have a place in my view of the world is people helping people.  That is a right thing to do, and I consider myself conservative.

I was speaking with my grandmother a few months ago, and she quoted part of Atlas Shrugged in which John Galt (sp?) delivers a monologue about how he won’t help another or expect another to let him live of off them.  The vibe I get from the staunch libertarians that I’ve spoken to is basically “screw you,” if you’re on hard times.  As much as I disagree with that viewpoint, holding it is a right given by the free society in which we live.

It’s completely based on faulty logic though.  Hardcore libertarianism (again, as I’ve observed it) seems to forget that a person can of their own free will be inclined towards charity.  And doing so in no way denies individual freedom, either of the giver or the receiver.  While I’d never force another person to do the right thing, I would labor day and night to persuade them to believe that the right thing is the right thing, motivating them to then make the same choice.  I call that sort of thing debate and letting the market place of ideas have its place.

But windfall profit taxes?  Redistribution of wealth?  Tithes and “offerings” as practiced in the Middle Ages?  No, no, and no.

3 comments »

Posted in philosophy, politics

Present reality vs. future possibility

August 14th, 2008

I’m listening to the radio this morning, and in a news segment there was a little blurb about John McCain choosing a so-called pro-choice running mate.  The announcer then made a mention of abortion “rights.”

Being one who chooses to err on the side of life, I have a big issue when someone talks about abortion “rights.”  America has a duty to protect her citizens, and the unborn certainly don’t have the capability to speak up for themselves.  Just as I feel we should reinstitute usury laws to help protect the financially weak (the lack of such laws unfairly harming minorities), I feel we should protect a child who happens to reside within his/her mother’s womb.  Where do their rights factor into abortion “rights?”  But that really isn’t the issue of this post.

I’ve read so-called pro-choice advocates argument that a mother is here now, and a child is only a possiblity in the future, so society must err on the mother’s side when making this choice.  That is certainly a sound argument (sound = the conclusion follows the premise, regardless of whether or not the premise is flawed;  it’s a logically consistent position).

So let’s take that sound argument to another issue of the day.  Global Warming.  The proselytes of the Church of Global Warming warn us of a Vengeful God that will strike at us if we don’t do “something.”  They propose policies that would bankrupt our nation and cost lives now all for the sake of some future possibility.

So which is it?  Does a certain present automatically override possible futures?  Or is just that progressive folk have chosen certain issues about which they feel passionate?

Look, as a conservative, I actually do respect the sound arguments of others.  I’m just asking for some consistency here.

No comments »

Posted in philosophy, politics, Uncategorized

Tags:

The journey of 1000 miles…

May 25th, 2008

…begins with the first step, sure, but what the proverb forgets to mention is that the 1st step is often 999 miles long.

I am a *chuckle* Software Engineer.  I prefer the term computer programmer because I don’t like title bloat, and to compare my work to, say, what a bridge builder does would be an insult to the bridge builder.  Don’t get me wrong– I take pride in my work, and I believe I do a good job.  Yet, no one is going to die if I missed checking for a nil object.  Now if I worked for NASA, that would be a different story.

Revenons à nos moutons.  Being the sort of tech-minded person that I am, I don’t like using something unless I understand it.  The best way for me to understand a technical thing is to reverse engineer it. Now, I think blogging software is pretty complicated.  There’s a lot that goes into it– little details to keep track of.  So, I’ve never wanted to maintain a blog without writing a blogging engine first.

However, I have (been overcoming) this fear of not starting anything because I might do it wrong the first time.  This fear has stopped countless projects in their infancy.

And that is STUPID!

Oh my gosh!  I might make a mistake.  And as a result, *shudder* learn something.  Run in horror.

Of course, the problem is that nothing ever gets done.  But, I recently changed jobs from writing device drivers at National Instruments to a more agile company*, where I’ve learned the value in incremental development.  I may not have written this blogging software, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t write one later.

So to recap the main points:

  • The first step is the longest/hardest
  • It’s okay to mess up the first time – you probably did when you learned to walk
  • Using WordPress isn’t a cop out

In fact, that last point is much more eloquently put forth by Frederick P. Brooks in The Mythical Man Month.  More specifically that chapter named, “Plan to throw the 1st one away,” or something of the sort.  I highly, HIGHLY recommend that book to anyone who does software first and foremost, but there is insight to be gained by everyone in that tome.

* – I will never actually name my current employer because I am an opinionated person politically, and to be sure those opinions will show up here from time to time.  My employer doesn’t seem to enforce mental conformity, but there are companies that do.  I love my job, and more importantly I love my family.  The latter is somewhat dependent on the former, let’s say, and I’m not willing to jeopardize their well-being, for a freaking blog of all things.

No comments »

Posted in philosophy, project management