This is not a review of a program or recap of a solution to a computer problem (nor a recounting of a thwarted attempt at same). File this more along the line of reaction to what I see as burgeoning cyber-elitism. The manifestations of this phenomenon can range from frustration among older members of the work force to across-the-board featherbedding of public school budgets all over America. Those culpable are by and large the sales departments of the computer industry and politicians whose slush funds are in need of reformatting. Three years ago the Tampa Tribune ran an article in their Commentary section entitled Wired to Learn by Larry Cuban. This Op/Ed piece gave voice to viewpoints which I thought then and still feel are being bulldozed by the computer industries and their various admen, lobbyists and assorted other shills.

In this article the author raised questions which should be given serious thought by every parent, educator, school board member and legislator in this country. The general theme was that there was (and is) a real danger that we are trying to hand over the task of education to the computer manufacturers and software companies. I do not have an agenda which is fundamentally opposed to the computer industry. I use computers over my own network every day. I recently purchased a laptop that I did not have a comprehensive plan to implement in my business at the time of remittance. Thus, I feel it is not a bias against computers which compels me to commit to paper (via Email to our Editor) these thoughts. It is also my strong feeling that Mr. Cuban’s article did not carry the line of reasoning out to its conclusion. While it is my central contention here that a techno-snob culture is in full bloom, one must look at the heralds and harbingers of the information age to find the genesis of this attitude. What is the true, fulsome motivation of those relentlessly telling the world that the computer is the alpha and the omega? It is, of course, the last 2-3 decades track record for sales in the field and the very reasonable expectation of like returns in the foreseeable future. The fact that a book by the captain of the industry held sway to any extent by touting the role which still more, newer and better computer devices will play in our lives should be a warning sign on that road. That billboard should be colored with irony; apparently it was deemed necessary to use the tired old printed word to help round up the laggard cattle, prod them to finish this cycle of rumination and prepare them for the next "must-have" device or application which will be obsolete before being fully debugged.

A case can and should be made in the national public forum that even if servo-bots can be contrived to achieve the implementation of mundane, non-virtual tasks (driving nails, street sweeping, maintenance of drainage ditches, etc.) planned by AI computers, this is not a desirable goal. Ample evidence is already before us about the validity of the old adage which talks about idle hands. Computers are here for the long haul; just as certainly there are many practical justifications for this state of affairs to continue. However, trying to shoehorn every child in this, or any, nation into learning via the CRT before they have a base of reading (so they can read the screen and manuals) and math (so they can do the math needed to write a program to solve the area of a triangle) just so that every hardware and software drummer has a full order pad is not justifiable. Therefore we should watch with a jaundiced eye any and all persons who advocate that every child should have a computer on their desk at school, whether or not they are up to the curve in the traditional skills which would give them the wherewithal to fully utilize the newer educational tools. The current holders of the land’s two highest offices have demonstrated precious little compunction about turning a buck in contexts which, while tried and true with respect to return, are dwarfed by the payoff that would be awarded the front man who institutionalizes unbridled, saturated computer installation in all of the public edifices of the nation.

Many accomplished computer users exhibit an intolerance for anyone who shows the least reluctance to be pulled into the cyber-arena. They cannot stand to see people doing anything on an old DOS machine. "Why, you could write a macro in Access to do that, do a mail merge and dump it over a network right to the mail room with the postage already metered on the envelopes!" Doubtless true, but to such folk it never seems to occur that some individuals genuinely do not have the time to learn the software involved, funds to purchase the hardware needed, and lastly and perhaps most importantly, the desire to do so. There is a strong element of denial in the viewpoint of hyperbolically enthusiastic cyber-people. Perhaps seeing others whose entire world does not seem to revolve around a keyboard, mouse and monitor reveals a flaw (however small) in their attempt to validate their own obsession; nevertheless, there are still those of us who just want to complete an assigned task or plunk out some invoices and get back to doing something in the wide world outside of the computer room.

Another form in which the elitist stance manifests itself is the prejudice in the graphic arts industry against the PC. At one time, the Mac may have been a better platform from which to run graphics software. That time has long since passed, but the bias remains. If one wishes to pay a premium to buy a machine whose maker at times seems to be on the verge of extinction, that’s all well and good. It is not logical to expect all concerned to make the same choice. This situation is akin to the contentious posturing which seems to quickly attach itself to discussions about the relative merits of the various operating systems. While personally I have never owned or used a Mac, I reserve the right to investigate Linux because I am interested in greater stability than Windows affords on a consistent basis. To those of the PC purists who loudly testify to the stability of the Windows, I must reply: Why all of the patches, bug fixes, updates, and new major versions each touting greater ease of operation, more features and a more robust nature? These marketing ploys by Microsoft and others remind me of television ads by auto makers which stated our new models are (insert some impressive percentage figure) safer, more ergonomically designed, fuel efficient or whatever than last year’s model. All they have accomplished in either case is to point out what a piece of junk they were foisting on the public only a year ago.

To listen to Microsoft loyalists go through the litany of their machinations to keep Windows on the beam in effect puts the lie to the claims from Microsoft about ease of use and stability. I’m no guru, but it is my contention that one should be able to get a scanner which worked well on Win 3.1 to work on the same system after an upgrade to Win 98. As it turned out, the scanner does work on 98; but not before I was forced to:

The point here is that although no bona fide geek, I have done some programming in a couple of different languages, spent the last 6 years immersed in study and use of Windows computers, and have installed and configured (for the most part) my own network. Still, I get into problems that pop out of the clear blue. Point is only a dilettante can afford to be abstractly immersed in the complexities of the "problem" for the "diversion" it affords when paper is not coming out of the printer. When nothing usable is emerging from the output end of the system, one does not want to hear pontificating about how well Microsoft’s products can work with each other across the platform. This is especially true when one has made a point of not installing a raft of games, not visiting or downloading from sites known to be risky, not involving my system with chats, discussion groups, etc. Certainly when Windows is working properly it is a powerful tool. If it takes a black-belt power user to keep it working then Microsoft’s Plug-and-Works-Better-Plays-Better pitch kind of loses its luster. Point is, given the above, opinion here is that intransigence in the stead of Windows and against any and all other operating systems is short-sighted, counterproductive and probably, at the bottom of it, just a self-aggrandizing move designed to establish how clearly superior the cyber-snob’s knowledge and abilities are. Further, when these sorts of forensic histrionics are engaged

in the presence of the uninitiated, the most likely end result is bemused disaffection on the part of the neophyte (translate potential user group member). u