I think we should let the OP decide that.
As I said, he wanted to know if it was "nuts" to want to learn tables, not just rely on a computer. Providing a relevant situation where it is beneficial to know tables is NOT "off topic".
Ok, as you wish, we can see if the op wants this discussed here or not. (to the OP. if you don't like this side-bar please use the "REPORT" button and ask a moderator to split the thread).
Please don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to learn about the tables and I have nothing against tables. When I learned how to dive there were no computers and I made my first 650-odd dives using tables.
Moreover, as I said above, I still teach both precisely because we *are* in a transition period. I believe where we differ in opinion is that I foresee that transition coming to a slow end at some point and you do not. I believe at some point people *will* see tables as an historical curiosity, the same way we see the abacus as an historical curiosity as compared to the calculator. Are we there yet? Maybe not, but I believe we will be.
Things change in this world. Some people accept change better than others and I think in our day and age this is especially true of acceptance of new technologies. Human beings have had similar debates about just about every change in history, not just in diving. Maybe the first caveman to use a hand full of pebbles to count higher than the number of fingers on his hand had a similar "debate" with his contemporaries. Likewise, people have literally been put to death for believing the world was round. But were they wrong?
Holding on to the past is no guarantee that the past ways are "better" (for lack of a better word). Do the reasons people used tables in the past still sufficiently justify spending the time on it in an age where we have technology that is (in some ways) demonstrably "better"? I think you would say yes. I'm not so convinced, especially when I see a potential risk (and clear examples) of mistakes if the diver is not using tables regularly. Where the rubber meets the road, people seldom use tables anymore and we've only had (decent) computers for a short time. How long do you think that it should be before we question the utility of teaching tables until the end of days just because we did so in the past? Our mathematics is no longer limited to counting fingers. We no longer accept that if you get cancer that you will die. Many children born in the last decade have never seen a telephone that plugs into the wall or has a rotary dial. We rely on technology and we accept new technologies as they come if it makes our lives easier or better. In my mind, it's no different in this case.
Whether people accept or resist change seems to have less to do with the new developments as it does with people themselves. There is a wealth of information available about "traditions" and "traditional thinking" and the idea of changeless worlds and organic societies. These are philosophical discussions, and it can be quite fascinating. In them you can get a sense of the very mechanics that come into play in these kinds of debates and the computer/tables discussion as an example of that.
The reason people end up exchanging stand-points about these things is because it's really hard to bridge the gap between letting go of traditions while not debasing the value they had at the time, and not wanting to let go at all. To be honest, I don't have a good approach for that. I understand you, but I don't agree with you and I'm not willing to hold on to past ways of doing things as much as you are. For your part, I think you must feel the same about what I'm saying. It's a hard gap to bridge.
R..