My Problem with Agnosticism

Warning: religious and philosophy talk ahead. Proceed at your own risk.

Click on the follow through link to read my essay "My problem with Agnosticism". It's probably worth reading if you like philosophy, I think. Before you begin, however, here is a link to what Wikipedia has to say and understand that I will define agnosticism and then refer to my definition of the term. So before you write me off for being "wrong", try and understand my points and my point of view. Don't disagree with me until you understand what I am saying. OK, disclaimer over, essay ahead.

Also, there arn't any photos, because throwing some in would be irrelevant. Sorry.

God Damn I am tired

I got 1 hour of sleep last night, and that is being generous. The past 3 days don't total nine. This isn't so much of a blog post as it is just holy balls I am tired.

Creative and Functional goal-aware software

By creative software, I mean software that is the tool for creation. By Functional software, I mean software that is the tool one uses to get things done.

Creative software is text input, drawing programs, modeling programs, image editing software, music software, etc. Something where you save a creative work out of it.

Functional software is for completing tasks. Email, calendar, clients (such as for FTP, SSH, etc), music players, file browsers, etc.

With both pieces of software, a user goes in with a goal. With creative software, that goal is not predetermined or predictable. The tool must step out of the way. A paintbrush does not give recommendations or auto-complete brushstrokes. It is not the creative software that makes the thing, is is the creative software that lets users make the thing they want to make. Users also have a goal for functional software, and this sort of software should be stepping in and helping out wherever possible - making it as easy and fast as possible to complete the task.

IMHO, the best software in either camp follows UNIX's philosophy of "One Thing Well", but particularly functional software. The more things a piece of software tries to do, the worse it is at doing everything. By just doing One Thing Well, design is more streamlined an efficient. Navigation trees are smaller - there are less steps to figure out what the user actually wants to do. Software - good design - should know and work with the goal of the user. With one-thing-well functional software, we get really good products.

But what about creative software, - there is no way to know what the user want's to do outside of really broad categories like 'paint' or 'write'. Programs like Photoshop have adaptable workspaces (read: changing/customizable interfaces that bring out the features of the programs depending on what the user wants to do, be it image editing, digital painting, proofing, or whatever. This allows a program as feature-packed as Photoshop to remain as useful as possible. Show the user what they need, hide what they don't, and get out of the damn way. Without the changing interface, the program would look a lot like pre-ribbon-strip Word. Menu after Submenu of categorized features that a user must hunt through, because the program does not know what it is the user want's to do, and thusly has to have everything be an option. It's better to have fewer yet more important [to the user's goal] options at quick access than to have every option 8 steps away. Weight the design towards what the users use - don't be equitable to the software's functions.

If software is just doing One Thing Well, then there is no need for this context-based interface modifying. Merely by launching the program, it knows what the user want's to do, and thusly the design can focus on making a better experience for the user. This is the best method I know for software to determine the goal of the user.

On responding to inane questions

Read the whole thing here

The Question: "You're very patient with people, particularly people who ask the most inane kinds of questions. Is this something you've cultivated?" and Chomsky's response:

"First of all, I'm usually fuming inside, so what you see on the outside isn't necessarily what's inside. But as far as questions, the only thing I ever get irritated about is elite intellectuals, the stuff they do I do find irritating. I shouldn't. I should expect it. But I do find it irritating. But on the other hand, what you're describing as inane questions usually strike me as perfectly honest questions. People have no reason to believe anything other than what they're saying. If you think about where the questioner is coming from, what the person has been exposed to, that's a very rational and intelligent question. It may sound inane from some other point of view, but it's not at all inane from within the framework in which it's being raised. It's usually quite reasonable. So there's nothing to be irritated about."

Noam Chomsky; Excerpted from Class Warfare, 1995, pp. 19-23, 27-31

Customer Service

When I need help that I know will involve talking to an actual person, I should be able to do the following:

1. Go to support webpage
2. With forms (dropdown), I narrow my problem down (to dept., etc)
3. I Enter my phone number
4. Have the company get a technical service representative ready, and then call me
5. I pick up the phone, and instantly start talking to someone in person who already knows my account information, basic problem, etc.

Amazon has customer support where you -optionally signed in to your account- put your email in and select your problem, but they call you instantly and you still have to wait on hold. At least they already have your account information (which was verified by me), and know where to send the call. 

Steps are being made in the right direction, but I still believe customer support is something where a lot of improvements are being made, but the forces at be - money, current systems, laziness - are keeping it terrible. This ultimately means a worse experience for the consumer.

Prescription VS. Description Dictionaries

Every once in a while, sombody notices that some stupid cultural bit (like "LOL") has been added to the dictionary, then they go around complaining about it and the decline of culture - as if culture is something that sites on a number line.

Here are some examples

But whenever somebody complains about whatever decline in English language, I tell them to stop being such a brabbler and learn the difference between prescription and description dictionaries.

The original "Just Google It" was to throw one of these at somebody

Lexicographers (word people, dictionary writers, language analyzers) have two methods of choice when writing dictionaries, Prescription or Description. 

Prescription dictionaries issue judgement. They denote and command proper use/practice of language, grammar, pronunciation, or syntax. Prescription dictionaries are seemingly resistant to changing.

Linguistic description does not establish rules, it is applied taxonomy. A descriptive dictionary reports what people say. If a neologism is common enough, then it goes in the dictionary. It is in these sorts of dictionaries that controversial or slang words/neologisms such as "chillax", "bromance", and "LOL" find home. NOT in prescription ones.

Well, not yet, at least. Language is always changing and evolving and, despite some lexocographer's stubbornness, that change is powered by the people. Language is about communication. If one can communicate effectively, that is what matters. I would like to say that lexicographers in the 'prescription' camp do not care about informal use, but that probably isn't true. Those word nerds are surely losing sleep over spoken abbreviations or anything "meme"-ish.

Language is a form of communication that can be found in both extremely formal and extremely informal environments. It is always changing, and whether certain changes are good or bad is a matter of opinion.

The clash between formal (Yes) and informal (Yeah) language is ever-present and very interesting. It goes back to the creation of English as a language. (If you click one link make it that one).

So stop bitching. If you don't like a word's existence, and think people who say "YOLO" or "Bromance", then just don't use it. Boycott the words you think have no place in language. Also, stop commenting on internet articles. Your opinion that English is declining is uninformed and pointless.
--
Also check this out

Our Contradictory Culture

There were Germanic Tribes in England. (The Angles and the Saxons, sound familiar?). Then some Christians showed up. Instead of the Christians getting rid of the germanic culture by replacing and driving it out, they mixed together. This mix of ridiculously separate, and often contradictory and confusing cultures can be argued to be the basis of modern english and thus a significant amount of both English and American culture, most notably with ideals. This mixing also explains Christmas and Easter, in case you were curious.

We idealize and value all of the following:
LOVE and WAR.
FORGIVENESS and REVENGE/VENGANCE
AFTERLIFE and THE FINALITY OF DEATH
PROVIDENCE and FATE.
Christianity on the left, germanic on right

I could but won't go on. You may argue that we do not idealize war or revenge, and that after death is a matter of opinion/religion. You might have a few good points, because it all differs on an individual scale, but as a culture, (look at the stories we grow up with), these things all mix! It's crazy!

It is because of this mixing that our culture is so contradictory. We love the war hero and pray for world peace. Great stories of revenge are told while forgiveness is the mental law of the land. What is this? Answer: America. This christian/germanic mix is the base that entered america, and the melting pot of america today continues to mix and change. There is no true american culture as america is the combination of culture. Just think about food. We mix things together. It's pretty awesome.

The Chilli-Cheese-Fried-And-Raw-Onion-Pickle-Ketchup-Mustard Hot Dog. And to think this started in Germany, now it can be found nowhere BUT America.

The government as set by our founding fathers set up rules that lets this happen. (Freedom of Religion, etc), but in order to receive the awesome and nifty benefeits of the mix, we have to deal with segregation, discrimination, and biased separation that is inheireit in such a system. Taking something and routing its history is always fun, particularly with food.

So can I be American? I often hear people tell me that I can't say I am American. "But what is your ancestry". America is from somewhere else, so you are from somewhere else, so where are you from?
Well that doesn't make any sense! I was born here! I was raised with American values! (Television!). Why, because my grandfather was born in Germany, am I German? On my father's side, I can't be more American (that's a lie: Native American). I am a direct descendant of Samuel Huntington. (Huntington is even my middle name, people), and you say I am not american. I am a mix of the cultures around me. That's as american as it gets!