design by rote....

One of the things that upsets me no end is to see good ideas given the "dumbass" cookie-cutter treatment!

This is a perfect example.

Notice option 4. "Can add only 10 sites (the value of increment by)" is a "disadvantage"?

Duh?, is anyone home? Has anyone stopped to think that changing the increment value to 1000 for example allows 1000 sites? Has anyone stopped to write a proper explanation of the principle of operation of this technique? Has anyone stopped to think that this technique is by far the most flexible out there? And that it MIGHT be worth explaining it in full so folks can use it out of full understanding rather than rote cut-and-paste?

The problem is not that the silly case of 10 was used.

The problem is that the PRINCIPLE of operation of the method was NOT explained.

With the result that we'll start seeing the usual "cut-and-paste" approach. And see folks working around the "10 site limitation" and other nonsense approaches!

And this was cut-and-pasted to another Oracle FAQ blog! It is bad enough that solutions "sanctioned" by Oracle sometimes are explained in as silly a fashion as any, without the "by the numbers" approach to blog posting starting to creep in as well!

Yes, mr Oracle: we KNOW that you can create a blog for each of your employees and cut and paste absolute crap into those to make up huge numbers of "publishing". It will only lead to more rubbish out there, I hope you realize?

I know Eddie has nothing to do with this, even if his name is mentioned in the blogs: he just set them up but he doesn't control what goes there. Unfortunately!

Anyways, enough ranting.

Sorry for the outburst, but this sort of thing really rattles my cage!


Blogger Joel Garry said...

Relax, and send your mind back to ...

Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:05:00 am  
Blogger Noons said...

oh yeah!

Thanks for that, jgar!

Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:34:00 pm  
Blogger Joel Garry said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Monday, February 12, 2007 5:34:00 am  
Blogger Joel Garry said...

Welcome! Take another gander, I added a link to the description, that corrected my memory. (It was October, the April meme came from the 1973 show, probably.)

Monday, February 12, 2007 5:36:00 am  
Blogger Noons said...

OM1, eh? That was one mighty camera from those times. Come to think of it, that STILL is one mighty camera! But I'm letting my film-bias show here. ;-)

One of my recurrent urges is to go out and get a OM4Ti complete with Zuiko 21mm lens: one of my dream camera setups for many, many years.

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:36:00 am  
Blogger Joel Garry said...

You made me look :-) Mine's a Zuiko 1:1.4 50mm. Until a couple years ago I always kept a filter of one sort or another on it so the surface is perfect. At the time I got it (just before a trip to Europe, 1976), my best friend also had one, so we would get complementary lenses. I got closeups, and he got the little telephoto zoomers.

Of course, we always dreamt of Nikon... (one of our high-school buddies became a pro, including a number of outdoor/offroad magazine cover shots) or Hassleblad... an interesting familial factoid is an uncle (Carl Berkeley) built the cameras NASA used on the moon.

Since my favorite local shop closed its doors, I've pretty much given up on film. Though there's a very little place in Carlsbad...

My father-in-law tried to give me his old stuff (Canon, I think) a few weeks ago, but I just demurred.

Monday, February 12, 2007 5:55:00 pm  
Blogger Noons said...

If it was Canon rangefinder, tell him I'll keep it and give it a good home!

Nikon was always a bit over-rated. I speak with first-hand knowledge: my gear is mostly mr N. But always had a soft spot for sensei Maitani and his amazing Olympus gear.


With the new scanner and some of the new film emulsions, quite frankly I can beat on quality most of the dslr material out there!

Yes, some dslrs are better than film. But they cost a small fortune and require special lenses. Until that changes, I'm happily staying film-based: speed of image creation was never an issue with me.

Monday, February 12, 2007 10:25:00 pm  
Blogger Paul said...

Hi, just read the design by rote rant and totally agree!

pure coincidence, but as I read your post, I noticed Discovery Channel's "How it's made" on the TV in the background.

Not sure if you get the program, but its a perfect analogue of the "design by rote" disease.

When I saw the promo for this program some time back I was actually looking forward ... potentially fascinating.

Now I've seen the show, and they've killed it by going the same dumbass route.

Pretty like watching a company operators training video. just step by step. right now they're showing how they heat weld a life jacket. but its all "she puts it in the machine, presses this button, takes it out, puts it over there".

Nothing about "why". Or how it was done in the past. Or who figured out that heat bonding is the best way, how? And why is it better than say glue or other methods? Or what innovations have brought about this the "state of the art" process.

Nope. Just the operator's step-by-step thanks.

My god, how could the producers of this dross even think this would be interesting? Or maybe I'm the krank, and they have a huge dumb audience quite content to watch this and are happy to think they now know "how to make a lifejacket".

Friday, June 29, 2007 3:37:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home