Second, I fail to see how that is a “valid point;” in fact, I don’t see that a point is even being made. Certainly computers are still technology. Television is still technology. Phones are still technology. Paper books? Yup, still technology.

I reiterate: if a computer is not technology, what is a computer? If a computer is not technology, what is technology?

Third, I did not claim that the entire talk was meaningless, only that the “point” that “computers aren’t technology” is meaningless buzz-talk. I stand by that.

The point, which is not spelled out in the notes, is that Jamie sees that list as characteristics of students today, one of them being that computers are not some mysterious technology. Hopefully the adjective will help clarify her point, because she was saying that kids aren’t afraid of computers the way older adults might be. It’s a point Douglas Adams made back in the 80s, one that I consider even more valid today. I’m not going to split hairs on the semantics of it so go ahead and call it technology, but there is a larger point being made that you’re not acknowledging or addressing.

I’ll retract my implication that you said her whole talk was meaningless, but her point was not meaningless, nor was it “buzz-talk.” These are just my notes from the session, for me, so that I can refer back to what was said. Sometimes others find benefit in them, so I post them on my blog. I again encourage you to look at Jamie’s slides when they become available or to contact her if you want more detail, but it seems a bit superfluous to throw around buzzwords like “buzz-talk” based on the small bit I wrote up. I hope the adjective and clarifications help provide some context.