Something about this article feels wrong. Maybe it's the author's disdain for technology, or the apparent hatred towards multi-tasking (the author brings up th

Something about this article feels wrong. Maybe it's the author's disdain for technology, or the apparent hatred towards multi-tasking (the author brings up the story of how he/she crashed while checking pictures on their camera while it was raining - this is their fault, not the phones'). The whole article seems like a, 'Remember the good ol' days when things were more simple?' story, telling of how all our technology has made things worse and by golly we should be concentrating on one thing only. Yet everyone multi-tasks, we were designed to do it; our ancestors had to concentrate on hunting in groups, and in doing so concentrate on their prey and communication among the group. Sure, too much multi-tasking is probably a bad thing, as can be said about anything, but it's so useful to multi-task. Everyone here is probably multi-tasking five different browser windows with ten different tabs in each while messaging and ssh'd into a server. It is just so efficient to concentrate on the most we can handle at once. This line cements this article for me as an ill-formed hate piece against technology: "What has the madness of multitasking cost us? The better question might be: What hasn't it?" This line of reasoning is what I hear from religious fundamentalists about science. And is the author actually trying to blame multi-tasking for Enron and Iraq?!?! Seriously, references are made towards how people were fooled by enron's constant multi-tasking of corporate tax law, saying that people were just too blazed by the sheer number of tasks in their everyday life to catch them, and then references a quote later from Guiliani on the concentration of US military power towards iraq, iran, afghanistan, implying in a low handed way that were being suckered by the administration. This article is garbage. This article isn't even about multi-tasking. (also,) does (the author (really) like lisp (or something)(?))