THE LAST STRAW: Computer manufacturers have gone a long way to making their products user-friendly, even for idiots like me, writes Frank McNally. So it's all the more worrying when I think I'm doing something harmless on my PC, such as recording multiple votes in an Internet poll, and the following message suddenly appears on the screen: "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."
There's always a certain amount of relief that, whatever the illegal operation was, the "program" is getting the blame for it.
Backing slowly away from the computer, I'll tell myself I haven't been accused of anything yet, and should remain calm. But it's not easy to be calm in the face of an announcement which sounds like something a policeman would shout through a loudhailer before demanding you come out with your hands up.
For one thing, it's never clear where the message comes from. It could be from the computer itself, obviously. But the harshness of the words is not in keeping with the tone my PC always adopts when dealing with me.
I don't know about your computer, but mine always speaks very slowly and deliberately, and is very careful not to say anything that might undermine my confidence.
For example, if I click on the "shut down" command, a box invariably appears on the screen gently asking me: "What do you want the computer to do?" This is accompanied by a series of answers in multiple-choice format, with "shut down" highlighted, but with face-saving alternatives offered, in case I've made a mistake or want to change my mind.
Sometimes, when I make a bad choice, the screen will ask: "Are you SURE you want to do this?" But that's as near as my PC ever gets to making judgments.
So this "illegal operation" message is totally out of character. And yet, if it's not the computer speaking, what is it? A useful clue would be the exact nature of the alleged illegal operation. But when you click on the box marked "details," which is always mockingly offered as an alternative to the one marked "close," the plain language of the original message is abandoned in favour of nerd-speak.
Typically, it will claim that what has occurred is a "fatal exception", followed by a series of numbers which could represent Bill Gates's current-account balance, for all you know.
Having no alternative, therefore, you click on "close" and accept the shut-down punishment for something you apparently didn't do. Provided you've saved your work, this is only a minor inconvenience. And if there's one thing you learn in journalism, it's the need to save your work constantly.
(Our editorial systems people are like born-again Christians in this regard. Whenever my computer crashes, the first thing they always want to know is: was your stuff saved? Frequently, they also warn about impending doom. "The coming down of the system is nigh," they claim, "you need to get saved now." Yet there will always be sinners who ignore the warnings and risk having their work cast into outer darkness.)
BUT once you close the programme and start again, you never hear anything more about the illegal operation. You're just expected to resume your working relationship with the PC as though nothing happened. Even if, before the incident, you were already worried about the growing influence computers have over our lives.
I don't know if it's part of the problem under discussion, but like many people, I have a PC that is far more powerful than I need it to be. When I started out, what I needed was a basic word processor; yet I bought a whole computer because I thought my requirements would evolve over time. And they have, to an extent. I now use up to four fingers for typing, for example, where I once only used two.
The point is that my needs are evolving at the rate of evolution as Darwin understood it, whereas computers are evolving rather faster. And yet every few years I feel the need to buy a more up-to-date PC, widening the already-embarrassing gap.
So even when I'm working flat out, perhaps writing up to seven words a minute, my computer still has a lot of spare capacity on its hands. This is a recipe for trouble and might explain why it's getting into difficulties with the law.
Out of sheer boredom, it could be issuing messages of support for the Al Qaeda network behind my back, or embezzling money from a pension fund. With so many computers in regular contact world-wide, it could be involved with a network of anarchists, organising violent street protests. Indeed, there are even more disturbing interpretations of the term "illegal operation", now that remote surgery has become a reality.
But I don't event want to think about that.
fmcnally@irish-times.ie