Nobody needs to be told how to use the lounge chair. "Users" of any age, background, or degree of sophistication can immediately comprehend it: take it in, in almost all of its details, at a single glance. It is self-revealing to the point of transparency, and the same can be said of most domestic furniture: you lie on a bed, put books and DVDs and tchotchkes on shelves, laptops and flowers and dinner on tables. Did anyone ever have to tell you this?
The same cannot be said of the iPod - which, remember, is one of the best-thought-out and comparatively simple digital artifacts ever developed, demonstrating market-leading insight into users and what they want to do with the things they buy. Take off your power user hat, try to imagine life without the chops you've earned over the course of your involvement with these complex artifacts, and you'll see that to people encountering an iPod for the first time it's not obvious what it does, or how to get it to do that. It may not even be obvious how to turn the thing on.
You don't have to configure the chair, or set preferences. You needn't worry about compatible file formats. You can take it out of one room or house and drop it into another, and it still works exactly the same way as it did before, with no adjustment. It never reminds you that a new version of its firmware is available, and that certain of its features will not be available until you do choose to upgrade. As much as I love the iPod, none of this can be said for it.
Transparent viciousness?
Transparent viciousness? Damn. I am neither an Obama or Clinton supporter (Edwards was my pick). I am a young man of color who has been taken aback by all this. Did you see the clips of the Clintons' statements on video? Both of their comments were distorted by a sound-bite obsessed press (Yes, even the "MLK diss;" seriously, check out the clip and you'll realize she's discussing about making sure one must turns dream into REALITY by taking advantage of political skill; at worst, it wasn't perfectly worded considering sound-bites).
Let's set aside supporters for a second: Why are you not holding Obama to account for the outrageously inflammatory antics of his national co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr.? My God, the man said--the day after the NH primary--that Clinton's emotional moment was in response to her "appearance" and that she didn't give a damn about Katrina survivors (Assumption: compassion can only be proven if one gets emotional on TV, which is odd considering that Obama didn't get emotional on camera and dismissed the notion that the Bush administration's ugly response was in any way racially motivated, stating "incompetence is color blind").
Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&e
Now, if we're going to hold Clinton responsible for her supporter (Johnson in particular; Cuomo's stupid word choice in reference to retail politics--not Obama), then why not attack Michael Eric Dyson for declaring that any criticism of Obama is "racial in subtext" and strongly implying that white women NH Clinton voters were racist? I mean, that was just nonsense (There was no Bradley Effect).
Here's the Dyson transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598268/
I didn't even mention Obama's office SC primary memo or the fact that the Obama campaign had bigotry problems itself, most notably with the D-Punjab letter and McClurkin. And yet Obama is the "real deal?"
Yes, I agree that Steinem was just wrong, but to fan the flames of racial divisiveness unnecessarily when it's obvious the press is just having a field day with this and Obama enjoying a ridiculous double standard will only ensure a GOP victory.