> Let's break it down to logic. way too start... WTF > If a user does not know how to use a complex tool, he is not able > to use it properly (1)
I think this is a marvel piece of symmetry, and it works BOTH WAYS, genius: if someone doesn't know how to use X properly he doesn't know how to use this complex X (*34.4a). wow, logical. > The only way to know how to use a complex tool is by learning how > to use it (2) The only way to learn something about X is by using X. Hmm, if the opposite is true will it rain tomorrow? > Computers are complex tools. Like your mom? > Therefore, if you don't know how to use > it, you won't be able to use it properly and the only way to use it is > by learing how to use it. I heard this somewhere. But she learned faster, I wish you were more like her. > Any claims that somebody without prior knowledge of computers can use > one properly without any education on the matter is only valid if you > think (1) is invalid or that computers are not complex tools. Since > negating any of those points is an absurd, then any claim that > somebody without knownledge of the field can use the computer is an > absurd too. Sorry, I don't understand such complex logic without medication. > The reason many people does not regard activities performed with > computers as "complex" in the modern age is because they have been > exposed to them long enough to learn how to use them up to some point. > It is worth noticing that people with actually zero exposition to > computers - like old people in rural isolated areas - is not able to > create an email account or launch a preinstalled game without a great > effort (which counts as learning experience). kid, i think you're imagining some place in the future where you actually figured out how to do something useful with a computer. i can assure you the time will never come, however much you're trying to learn. because you will get distracted by your bullshit logical insight.
