John fusses about a New York Times article dumbing down the term "hexadecimal" and continues to talk about how people might should be bombarded with computer related terms and acronyms. He says that if they want to know, they'll summon a dictionary or Google for a bit of learning. He asks
I just wonder when exactly The Times stopped calling automobiles horseless carriages. And when did it stop using velocipede for bicycle? The Times story reflects a much larger issue: Exactly how much jargon should be incorporated into the general lexicon? We're not in 1850 anymore.I must submit my own two cents: Sure, we now call the horseless carriage an automobile, but the average driver does not know what the EGR valve is or does. I doubt they care. My father just had his EGR valve replaced for around $400, and still has no idea what it is. All he knows is that his truck runs smoother now. Stay with me - there is a point.
In the same light, everybody knows, generally, what a computer is. They just don't know everything about it. Or how it works. Nor do they care, just as long as it keeps working. My mother doesn't care one bit about the fact that I run Fedora Core 5 in runlevel 3 and with that machine I am able to keep up with my home IP address via a Google Gadget. It also runs home automation tasks with some open soure software called Heyu. As long as my mother can play solitare just as she has for the past ten years, she can't give a hoot about how much RAM she has, or that it's DDR. I might note that she is not mechanically enclined, either.
There is nothing wrong with that. I can understand operating systems and set up networks, but I can't read music or sell insurance. I don't know what an F-stop is or how to use it (adjust it?). I can change my own oil and manage my finances, but I don't know that I could provide in-home care for the elderly or disabled. We all have our specialties and don't have the time or interest to learn others, John C. Dvorak included.
No comments:
Post a Comment