Biting the hand that feeds... again

Sometimes I get so frustrated with computers that I want to go back in time and prevent their successful invention in the same way that some people want to go back in time and stop Hitler.

I am not exaggerating for effect. Alas.

And yes, I am not oblivious to the likelihood that in order to travel through time would involve calculations that only computers could provide, and thus to go back and make it so they never could be developed to the point where they could be used for manipulation of time would in itself create a paradox. And yes, I am certain that even if one did travel back and prevent computers from being invented as they were in the timeline we know, all that would do is make it so someone else ended up inventing them. I know.

I didn't just fall off the proverbial hackneyed science fiction turnip truck.

Computers were destined to dominate modern life but still suck. I get it. (And the fact that somehow my computer refrained from sucking long enough to allow me to type this does not let it off the hook.)

Thus we can take some solace in knowing that they'll never actually rise up and overthrow humanity; they'd have to stop sucking consistently, and then we'd know what they were planning, and could stop it.

And if we didn't in time, well, then there's always that time-travel option.

Wait. Wasn't I ranting about something?

Digressing calms me down. Probably because it doesn't require a computer.

God and dog have the same letters

Each morning on my walk to the train station I pass a Methodist church.  Running around it, between the sidewalk and the building, is a strip of green grass, maybe four feet wide.  On more than one occasion I have spotted (not because I was seeking it out but because it was obvious at a glance) a pile of dog excrement that had been deposited on that grass.  (At least, I presume its origin is canine; that's about the only species that I prefer to believe would do this.)

While it very well could be stray dogs perpetrating this, I suspect the dogs in question did have human companions.  As such, I do sometimes wonder whether the act of allowing one's dog to crap on the small lawn is mere inconsideration or some form of protest.  Might it be one person in particular who has a beef with the church and is encouraging his animal to do its business at that location intentionally?

Clearly the perpetrator is unconcerned with any ramifications from the One whose house it is.  Of course, from a WWJD standpoint, it seems like He might say:  "If thine neighbor's dog defiles your lawn, allow the animal to raise the other cheek."

(Oh yeah.  I went there.  Jesus would find that amusing.  That's my belief.)

Convenience: a specious generalization and a specific rumination, joined by the caprices of my mind

Convenience is the problem.

When humans had to run after giraffes in a hunt or wander around all day gathering nuts and berries we had motivation; there was no option other than an active lifestyle (applying modern terms).  I doubt humans stood in place performing exercises in order to stay in shape.  They may have practiced the techniques used while hunting, but that wasn't because they felt they needed to lose a few pounds.

Now our food is brought to us from industrial farms on trucks and we only need make occasional trips to the supermarket, with the only exertion involving lifting the bags from the cart to the car, and then from the car in to the kitchen.  Heck, we can even place an order and have food brought to us without even having to leave and lift bags in and out of the car.  It's entirely possible to make a living with a sedentary lifestyle.  Heck, to make a living with a physically active lifestyle tends to indicate one makes less than some of those with the aforementioned sedentary kind.

And yet, somehow contemporary humans live much longer than our prehistoric ancestors, in large part to the work performed by those leading the less-active lives and the advances with science and medicine.

That, and we don't tend to be attacked by wild animals as much.

~

Convenience is the solution.

Back when I had a CD Walkman my method of listening to it while riding the train was as follows:  At the beginning of the trek I'd attach the headphones, start it playing whatever disc I had in it, then put it in a small case and set that down in a pocket of the bag down below the seat, by my feet.  The cord of the headphones was long enough to stretch from my ears to near the floor (at least when I was seated), but occasionally it would catch on something or I'd turn my head too far and either my head would be pulled back or the cord would come out (and I'd need to go and re-attach it).  If the volume of a song was too loud I'd have to reach down, pull the case from the bag, pull the device from the case, and adjust the sound.  If later songs were then too low… well, you get the idea.  If the train operator made an announcement and I needed to stop the disc, same deal (generally I could only remove the headphones quickly enough to hear).  If the disc playing reached the end, again it involved going down in to the bag.  And if the batteries on the player died, it involved taking everything out—including the CD itself, as the battery compartment was underneath there.

Now I have an iPod Nano that I keep in my shirt pocket.  If I need to change the volume I can swipe the wheel through the fabric without even taking it out.  If I need to pause, that too can be done through the shirt.  And there's always more songs than I can listen to in a commute.

I like that.

And I admit:  It's convenient.

I'm not saying iPods are perfect or anything, but generally I am pleased with the aforementioned aspects of their operation, especially relative to the corresponding functionality with portable CD players.

Bravo, technology. In this one particular instance.

Idling

One morning last week, as I walked to the office, I passed a car parked by the curb with someone inside. The motor was running. I couldn't tell what the occupant was doing, but the car did not move the entire it was in sight.

The reason this is at all noteworthy: On the side was the logo "AQMD." That is, it was a company car for the Air Quality Management District, sitting there, spewing pollution.

Just something I idly noticed.

Pushing it out: Feeling better by feeling worse

Something that years of being involved with the implementation of new software on the computers of hundreds of people in the organization where I work has suggested is this:  Unless the new thing is flawless, is without any issues, is in every possible way better than what they had before, then people will want to keep what they had before.  No matter how problem-ridden the previous application had been, people will complain about the new application that replaced it, even if the new one has marked improvements and fewer problems.  In short, people take comfort in the imperfection with which they are familiar; it is to what they are accustomed, and with what they can deal, even if dealing with it required extra work.

The other thing that the long view of experience has shown me:  After the change has been implemented and time passes and people get used to the new stuff—and accept it for what it is and not complain about what it is not—there will come a time where that itself needs to be replaced again; a new version comes out, or the company that made the old one goes out of business, or outside circumstances change sufficiently that the process of change must occur again to accommodate the way the larger situation has developed.  And when that time comes where that second thing that replaced the first thing is to be replaced by a third thing, the people who complained about the second thing back when it was new will be its staunchest defenders; much as they despised the second thing when it replaced the first, after having no choice but to give it a chance and then getting used to it, they will then complain the loudest about having the second thing taken away when the third thing replaces it.

The other lesson:  These complainers may be the most vocal, but ultimately they are a minority; the majority just want something to get the job done, and will just roll with the changes as long as they don't actively interfere with getting the job done.  Those who are inclined to complain will complain; it's what they do.  That's not saying their complaints are completely invalid, or should be dismissed out of hand, but they should not be considered as representing the majority.

~

What made me think about the above was not a particular incident at the office but seeing the way the debate regarding the proposed changes to the health care system, and the way that those protesting vociferously get the most attention in the media.

It sort of strikes me as something we've heard before, and, years from now, when the universal health care bill that gets passed will be amended or revised to account for changing times, will be something we'll hear again.