Do you have a cite for that? (Not that I really doubt it; it seems to be one of those mistakes that’s somehow natural and easy to make.)
No, you!
And yo mama!
(I love it when these debates get deeply into academic esoterica.)
Fuck off, that’s not what I said. You’re being a disingenuous ass. I was refuting your specious claim that a smartphone is “just a laptop that you can put in your pocket”. It isn’t. Its tiny form factor and extreme interface limitations among many other extreme limitations in performance and functionality make it very different from a general-purpose computer even if (as I said) there is some overlap in functionality. Why would anyone with a smartphone also own a laptop or desktop computer? As I said in the other thread, I’ve worked with computers my entire career. I grew up with them. I was at Xerox PARC when they were developing the Alto, the world’s first windows-based PC. I’m pretty sure I know what a computer is. Fuck off.
You can definitely do some limited computer things on a smartphone. Send an email or look up the weather forecast? Sure. Fully configure and run a coupled ocean-atmosphere global climate model? Not so much. Run leading-edge web services for a thousand users? Nope. Why is Google spending $10 billion on data centers when they could just keep one in their pocket?
True; but if the intent were to use the standard version for gatekeeping, then the education would have to be for a different version. The same “standard version” can’t be taught to everyone for comprehension, and simultaneously be used to separate social classes.
The closest we’ve got to that gatekeeping use is that some people are effectively learning the standard version as a second language, which reduces the chances that they’ll learn it as well as the ones who also hear the standard version at home; though quite a few people do wind up speaking both (or multiple) versions easily.
Well, at least we’re sort of back on topic.
My point, which you ridiculously disputed, was that the smartphone is a natural evolution of computers, and while the smartphone was a breakthrough, it was one that was inevitable. 95% of what I do on my laptop (emails, surf the net, watch videos, play web games, social media) I can do on my smartphone. If Jobs hadn’t done it, someone else would have done it very shortly afterwards, since the applications and marketability were so obvious.
But please, keep up in your wrongness! It continues to entertain.
By that metric I could only do some limited computer things on every smartphone computer I’ve ever owned.
I don’t see where I disputed that. I disputed the contention that smartphones could be considered fully functional general-purpose computers, while also saying (in the part that you forgot to quote) “I’m not disputing that a smartphone is indeed a computer, and by legacy standards, most of them are pretty powerful multiprocessors, too. I’m just responding to the question in the OP. I mostly hate the damn things …”
Since that quote is in the very same post that you linked to, I must modify my comment where I called you a disingenuous ass for claiming I said that “smartphones weren’t a type of computer”. What you actually are is a fucking liar.
If all that’s all you ever do on your computer, it’s understandable that you’d consider a smartphone a perfectly adequate computer.
That’s objectively false. I actually have configured and executed many runs of a climate model on my desktop PC. There’s currently a newer one where users are being asked to help the research effort by providing compute cycles to run climate simulations.
On some occasions I’ve set up web services using IIS (Internet Information Services) on Windows 7 Professional. I’ve also sometimes enabled FTP service on my PC.
I try to be relaxed about spelling and pronunciation changes, but ‘woah’ really makes me grind my teeth.
You might want to consider this,
before you say anything else stupid.
Believe it or not, I was feeling sympathy for you, Wolfpup, under the dogpile. I was thinking there are genuine good points in your thoughts that could be extracted and shined up. Until you came back at me with this. Way to miss the whole point. I had hoped to work through this with you, starting from first principles: the language structures in the brain. To establish first of all that books can only be operating manuals, while the real grammar is purring under the hood. (Or under the bonnet if British.)
That wasn’t meant as an attack on you, Johanna, though I see that I didn’t originally understand you correctly. I would nevertheless argue that although you make a valid point, the analogy isn’t completely accurate. The real grammar may indeed be under the hood, but we have differing perceptions about it. The purpose of all those reference books is obviously not to define the lexicon and the grammar, but to empirically observe and document it with a view to standardization and best practices.
You must be even dumber than I thought.
I will withdraw the claim that you insisted smartphones weren’t a type of computer, that was a mistake and I apologize.
Pretty much everything else you said in that thread (and in this thread about linguistics) is still wrong, and still very funny.
What’s wrong with desktop PCs?
Very woke.
Never, NEVER, NEVER!!! And besides, if Hell is full of people saying stuff like that I’d be better off in Limbo anyway.
I know quite a few people IRL who do it constantly. Usually reflexively, too. I love them, but only in spite of this habit, definitely not because of it. Gets to where I will use “less” for countables on purpose just to wind them up.
You were champing at the bit to say that, weren’t you?
Rein it in, you two!
Neigh!
P.S. Thank you for not saying “reign” – another molar-masher.