[FoRK] Clarifications and expansions... Re: What the hell just happened?
jbone at place.org
Sat Apr 10 08:07:55 PDT 2010
> The use is in the using....
Horse shit. The use in in the intent, and an inanimate object doesn't have any fucking intent.
There can be intent in the tool-maker, which is what you obsess about... or the tool-user. You would seek to *RESTRICT* what choices the latter could make (or, at least, hound so doggedly that such a choice becomes tedious) simply because of your foolhardy fixation on the former. Relax, bro. It ain't the end of the world --- and if, maybe, it might be at some point down the road, you aren't going to win any converts by calling them "sheeple" when they make what they judge to be reasonable trade-offs and decisions about such things. You actually do your own cause damage with your ranterish knee-jerk ministerin'. I get it, I get it, we're all sinners. What the fuck ever.
> for a tool unused is without use and a
> useful tool made unusable is again useless.
Indeed. But if I never intended to use a tool for a particular purpose in the first place, then I don't *care* whether or not it can, should, is "allowed" to be, etc. used for that purpose. I'll use it for the purpose I intended it, and that's that.
I don't get all bent out of shape when, say, I buy a hammer and it says "not intended for use as a #0 Phillips-head screwdriver." That you can get so twisted up about such things *from a single vendor in particular* defies all belief.
> You could say a tool has usefulness in potentia but if that tool is
> made such that the potential is unreachable then you have bupkis.
Indeed. But again, do we get mad because a hammer's "potentia" for other uses is rendered unworkable by its manufacturer, design, etc.? Of course not. Not everything is suited for every purpose; use things for what they're useful for if you have that intended use, and don't get so worked up about other people's intents, uses, and tool choices when they don't impact you.
You don't want to buy Apple, no problem, more power to you. But to fail to acknowledge that different people have different uses for the same items --- and that "the street finds its own uses for things" --- is fucking stupid. Not being open-minded enough to even *ask the question* why some people might choose to use a particular tool from a vendor you abhor, but rather to simply mindlessly lump them all into some "sheeple" category --- is stupid. To obsess about some language on a paper when, clearly, technology *always* manages the end-run around such poor attempts at restriction --- is stupid. And demonizing anyone who makes such a tool choice --- or rather, demonizing the choice itself, without understanding whatever went into it or caring / bothering / attempting to do so --- is stupid.
Again, that I bought the iPad to run *a single app* that is *not available elsewhere* and that *I needed for a specific purpose* and which choice *saved me beaucoup money* isn't fucking immenentizing anybody's apocalyptic tech-eschaton.
> That you want your Apple Device not to have limitation and restricions
> placed on it by the powers that be, wether you run up agianst them or
> not, is nice and all but as with the shoehorn there is no such thing.
I would prefer such devices to have fewer limitations and restrictions but, as I've said repeatedly, those that exist today (well, possibly up to day before yesterday) were so minor *with respect to my intended uses* that they didn't even register on my radar. That you can get so lathered up about such things is, truly, amazing.
> Heck even this guy made sense before he had an iPadcrackpipe problem
Ah, a teachable moment. Thank you for the opportunity.
First, your history of getting good and lathered whenever anyone mentions Apple in anything less than a completely damning way far transcends whatever "iPadcrackpipe" BS you want to try to frame this present go-round as. It's chronic, it's 100% predictable, and it's painfully tedious. It completely eliminates the possibility of any reasoned discussion of tradeoffs, pros / cons, etc. of any product said company, inarguably one of the great innovators and drivers of *what actually happens in our technology markets* these days. We've been down this road before, many times, e.g. when I blew your mind some, oh, 7 or so years ago by explaining how attempting to configure Xinerama on Yellow Dog to drive an external monitor had ultimately led me to just give up and start using Mac OS X consistently, because, hell, I didn't have to deal with an ever-growing list of BS low-value sysadmin tasks. "Just worked." Yet rivers of patented Whoreo Anti-Apple Dogma ensued, as it has any time anyone has said anything to the effect of "well, it's useful for X purpose." Yawn, yawn, yawn.
And all the preachin' and teachin' you've been attempting with this ongoing years-long sermon --- if you can call simply damning at high dudgeon anyone and anything who attempts to say something positive such --- hasn't changed a damn thing about Apple's impact on the market in the meantime, has it?
Per the quote you mentioned above: yes, I absolutely despise Microsoft and have diligently eliminated them from my personal reality whenever and however possible, which is *almost* completely. But there's a key difference, here. For both *their* and *my* intended uses of their products, Microsoft over the years increasingly peddled *pure crap.* The shit didn't work well for *any* purpose. Not so w/ Apple; as Lucas said: asshole company and legal, but great engineering.
Big difference, see?
> So to recap, your milage with the restrictions placed on you do not
> ruin the cut of your suit...others are hung differently. Chaffing is a
> bitch me boyo, chaffing is a bitch.
Without a doubt. Now if you could just apply said principles to your practice in this one little instance, then we'd all be better off for it.
Or, a "restriction" that doesn't restrict anything I want to do is no restriction for me. For you, the answer may be different, and it simply lies in *what you want to do with the thing* --- not the thing itself.
More information about the FoRK