[Tutor] [OT] Re: os.path.exists(path) returns false when the path actually exists!
keridee at jayco.net
Fri Aug 3 00:35:21 CEST 2007
>> But they have provided Microsoft with much money because more useless
>> people can use computers.
> That's a little harsh, isn't it? A person using a computer is not useless
> by virtue of not wanting to program or understand technical details, but
> rather just wanting to use it for its functional purpose. There are
> people in my Finance department who know much more about finance than I
> do, and more, I suspect, than you do. They are very useful to me and my
> employer by virtue of that knowledge, and if some of them don't know
> about Microsoft Windows file extension, well, quite frankly, who cares?
> They know what's important.
> I don't want to have to know the details of what makes my car run. All I
> want to do is drive it from one location to another.
And one day your car doesn't start. So you blindly take it to a car mechanic
(or even the dealership~shudder) where they hook it up to a battery charger,
send it back and charge you $300. Right. Not important to you. I wish I
could throw away that kind of security.
>> It is because these people do not wish to learn, do not have the
> Why should they have to learn? They just want to use the spreadsheet, for
> example. Why should they have to learn that the magic sequence of ".XLS",
> when appended to a file name, make the file work a certain way? In most
> contexts, the name of a thing does not determine how it works. The name
> is just a name.
Why? Because it's a good idea. The name of the thing does not determine how
it works. But it does determine how it works in Windows. I do not expect
them to understand *why* the magic sequence of .xls causing this file to
open in Excel. I expect them to overlook it. I expect them to accept them. I
do not think it's appropriate that Microsoft should baby them by hiding the
extensions by default.
> I suppose I could have a television that would require me to know to tune
> it to a frequency of about 69Mhz to watch a particular program; but it's
> just so much more convenient to me to turn to channel 4. I see that
> hiding of the technical details as an improvement, not a hindrance.
Did I say I wanted people to know just what extension is what? Did I say
that they have to parse the .xls file for Excel? No. I ask that they learn
to accept it. Just like I would ask them to accept a slip of paper taped to
the TV that lists all of the frequencies mapped to the channels. I would not
ask them to use the table of frequencies to tune the TV. They may use the
channels. But the table would be there, visible, not hidden away where
potentially someone who needs it might not be able to find it.
On the other hand, do you want a neural transmitter installed in you so that
you can more easily change the channel? Hey ~ you wouldn't even have to know
which channel you want to watch. All you would have to do is know *what* you
want to watch. Wouldn't that be excellent? It's like looking all over the
living room for the TV remote because you don't know how to change the
channel using the TV.
> Why should people adapt themselves to software instead of having the
> software adapt to them? I'm cribbing a bit from George Bernard Shaw here,
> who wrote something like, "The reasonable man adapts to the world; the
> unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
> depends on the unreasonable man."
Why should computer people have to adapt to user-friendly software?
More information about the Tutor