On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:44, Martin B�hr wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:04:03AM +1300, Brad Beveridge wrote: > > I think that with a little training or reading of instructions, > > anybody can use a computer. The problem is that computers offer too > > much flexibility, and there is no expectation to have to learn how to > > do it. It is about choosing the right tool for the job. I wouldn't > > use an oscilloscope to measure a voltage when a multi-meter would do. > > Unfortuantly, there doesn't appear to be any "less complex" computers > > around for people to choose to use. > > excellent comment. > it leads back to what yuri said two weeks ago: > The general purpose computer is not ready for the unassisted novice. > This applies to Windows, Linux and to some extent, even the Mac.
I started _really_ learning how to use computers in 1990. I started on the Apple Macintosh. I used the self-training disk at the U of Cant's Computer Services computer lab, and it took about three goes before I felt comfortable to fire the silly thing up and try it without the self-training disk. I still don't consider myself fully computer-literate, because among other lacks, I cannot read IBM's HLASM or JCL, and I don't know all that much about assembly language full stop. Mind you, I also consider myself imperfectly literate because I do not read either Chinese (either the simpler PRC form or the traditional Taiwan form) or Egyptian hieroglyphics, or Mesopotamian cuneiform, which is a little bit more difficult than Classical Greek. ;) > > the discussion has come full circle :-) > > greetings, martin. Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
