|
Despite what recent research suggests, no, probably not. "I am so smart! S-M-R-T"
|
|
|
|
|
If being dumb means to not being able to calculate the product of 2 double variables as fast as Google Chrome can, then yes... Everything on this planet would make me feel dumb.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Wait now..."Despite" what research suggests? So what are we using as an alternative to research then?
|
|
|
|
|
Considering how people actually use "the thing", it's interesting that we still call "it" a phone. It's more like a pocket PC with the ability to make phone calls.
So, is your pocket PC making you dumb? I think it really depends on the task and how one defines "dumb". For example, if your dependency on GPS makes you lose your ability to navigate on your own, then yes, I think you'll look pretty dumb when your gadget stops working all of a sudden (while this is not so much of a concern for older folks like me, what about the younger generations?)
On the other hand, if you look at tasks like using it as a calendar to manage your appointments or address book, then no, I think it's not making you dumb because in this regards, "the thing" is just a more advanced notebook to keep that information, and people used pen and paper to make notes for ages.
Nonetheless, I think the more one depends on technology to solve a problem, the more he or she loses her natural abilities to do it. Just look at how to make a fire without a lighter or match...
|
|
|
|
|
Wha?? Ah dunno..
#SupportHeForShe If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely correct. We are living in a world where phones are getting smarter and people are getting dumb 
|
|
|
|
|
Smart.... ass?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone had to go first, so on March 15, 1985, Lisp computer maker Symbolics, Inc., registered the Internet’s first dot-com address: Symbolics.com. There you go: next time someone asks, "What was the first .com?" you'll be able to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: next time someone asks, "What was the first .com?" you'll be able to answer.
That's actually pretty cool to know. Interesting website too.
Which I'd thought to register fb.com when Facebook first arrived on the scene. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Last week, I wrote a column on the deep fear held by many in the startup ecosystem of hiring a “Secretly Terrible Engineer.” The sequel
|
|
|
|
|
This is a tutorial on how to implement a programming language. Because... because... well, I guess because at least one person felt a need
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, the language based on JavaScript would be better than JavaScript. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
The only way you could make JavaScript worse would be to add "indentation based block scoping".
I might just do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Implementing a programming language Hmmmmmm I only worried these days about mastering one 
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers suggest there are so many scientific papers that their contents are being rapidly forgotten. "Recursion: see Recursion."
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know where you got it from - but I guess from my new signature? 
Recursion: see Recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an old joke, but then so am I.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I think I also already knew it once. I guess I'm so old it's new again
Recursion: see Recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
It recursed itself into re-relevance
|
|
|
|
|
nice one! 
Recursion: see Recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, I can't remember the contents of this study, which means I must've remembered it!
And I certainly remember that study that said refactoring isn't effective
|
|
|
|
|
This would really appeal to the Neo-Luddites[^].
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Kent wrote: "Recursion: see Recursion."
I don't know how you picked it. But there is tech joke says
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "Recursion: see Recursion."
In other words, this study added one more to that.
A question arises: Has the increased number of scientific studies decreased the 'unscientific-ness' of the general populace? I guess not.
|
|
|
|
|
Go offers speed, concurrence, and portability, but it's still young and might be too simple. Do not collect $200
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
