|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > November 2005 > get a hold of this.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
get a hold of this.
|
|
| Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 2005-11-29, 5:50 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:59:40 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.11.29.00.20.22.856830@eelbash.fastmail.fm> admin
> <admin@eelbash.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
> It's a breeze. It's difficult to stop it from working "out of the box".
There was a crackpot theory floating around a few years ago which theorized that the first time you tried to do something, it might be difficult, but that mysterious entities were somehow produced as a result of the first attempt, which made subsequent at
tempts much easier than could be explained by normal learning.
I can understand why somebody would have dreamed that up: I have seen people come in here saying they could not configure this or that, when it was obvious to those of us who already knew how to do it, that what they were trying to do was easy, but perhap
s a bit difficult to put into words.
I think the problem is a lack of good documentation, and an inability, on the part of people willing to help, to clearly articulate their knowledge.
Typing instructions is a poor way to get them across. You need the integration of the instructions plus what is on the screen, and, if all you can do is type the instructions in, it makes for a lot of typing, which people don't want to do, understandably.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2005-11-29, 5:50 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
<nobody@cypherpunks.to> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:59:40 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>There was a crackpot theory floating around a few years ago which
>theorized that the first time you tried to do something, it might be
>difficult, but that mysterious entities were somehow produced as a result
>of the first attempt, which made subsequent attempts much easier than
>could be explained by normal learning.
>
>I can understand why somebody would have dreamed that up: I have seen
>people come in here saying they could not configure this or that, when it
>was obvious to those of us who already knew how to do it, that what they
>were trying to do was easy, but perhaps a bit difficult to put into words.
>
>I think the problem is a lack of good documentation, and an inability, on
>the part of people willing to help, to clearly articulate their knowledge.
>
>Typing instructions is a poor way to get them across. You need the
>integration of the instructions plus what is on the screen, and, if all
>you can do is type the instructions in, it makes for a lot of typing,
>which people don't want to do, understandably.
If 9999 out of 10000 people can make it work with the instructions as they
are, and you can't, the problem is not with the instructions.
In other words, some people are just too stupid to enjoy anonymity.
|
|
|
|
|