Ignorance should never be treated as a virtue. And yet that is what is happening and this original post proves that this attitude is still alive.
Yes, still alive.
Not to sound like an old fart, but this is a very old problem that won't go away. It's easy to be frustrated by the infinite well of stupidity -- the human fate to play whack-a-mole with idiocy. For all the progress (including amazing tech) there's a tail in our intelligence distribution that is retrograde. Worse yet, there's a fraction in the intelligent part of the distribution that is cynical or lazy or evil.
To be clear, I agree with you. Stupidity pushes my buttons too. I differ in that I don't think it's a problem exclusive to modern society. I'm pretty sure that there never really "used to be a time when learning stuff was considered important" *in the sense* that most people thought that way. Rather, I think we've been lucky to benefit from the smart and non-cynical people who have, by virtue of their creativity and (perhaps, accidental) generosity, given us pretty usable tools of agriculture, commerce, art and humor to work with. Of course, those tools only work well for some of us and the negative side of those tools can be downright nasty to those without the means of most slashdot readers.
My point is that in spite of the large number of morons, I don't want to let that sap the infinitesimally small amount of good I just might be lucky enough to do without also, possibly, messing up in some colossal unintended way.
For the hard drive, disassemble one in front of them and get their interest and curiosity.
Nice idea. A better way would be to let the kids do the disassembly. This is best done in small groups (say one or two kids per hard drive).
Make sure you extract the magnets for the drive head motor and show how strong they are.
Bonus: have rolls of masking tape, cardboard tubes, and extension wire in different colors (scrap ribbon cable is great). Ask the kids to "build a robot" from the parts.
Above all, don't take yourself or the role of teacher too seriously.
It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north
I heard an interesting story on NPR this afternoon about a village in Alaska that is being threatened by storms. Historically the village was safe because by this time of year the ocean near the shore had frozen. In recent years (past decade?) the oecan is not freezing before the severe storms hit. As a result, the erosion is removing the sand that the village is settled on.
The general trend appears to be supported by a report from the US Global Change Research Corportaion. which states in part
All components of the cryosphere (the frozen portions of the Earth) in the Arctic are experiencing change, including snow cover, mountain and continental glaciers, permafrost, sea ice, and lake and river ice. For example, glaciers in Alaska, as throughout the Arctic, have retreated through most of the 20th century. Estimated losses in Alaskan glaciers are of the order of 30 feet in thickness over the past 40 years, even while some have gained thickness in their upper regions.
And don't cherry pick that "gained thickness in their upper regions" part. My guess (I'm not a glacial hydrologist) is that there is a small gain at the top due to increased precipitation -- possibly also caused by warming. Bottom line is the the ice mass is decreasing.
On the matter of erosion the USGRP report says
In fact, there are already numerous ecosystem changes observed due to permafrost thawing. They include:... increased coastal and riverine (along the banks of rivers) erosion
Of course, being authored by an agency of the US goverment the report finds the silver
lining
In the longer term, longer ice-free seasons are likely to bring substantial benefits to marine transport and offshore operations in the petroleum industry
Me. I think we've set in motion a huge experiment. We should do our best to minimize our impact, but being humans, we won't. The mass would rather swill another budwiser and flick the remote.
Building parts/objects for yourself doesn't benefit from mass production, and thus would tend to cost more.
You're right, of course, that mass production is all about economies of scale. But distributed, personal-scale manufacturing has the potential to fuel innovation in a way that complements the centralized creation of manufactured goods.
Specifically, folks who previously might not have been able to see their ideas turn into real hardware will be able to build stuff. In addition, putting small scale machine tools into high school and college labs will help remove some mysteries of manufacturing and (I would hope) inspire more folks from all backgrounds to develop interest in technology.
There will still be room for mass production. Personal scale manufacturing will just make the ecology of manufacturing more rich and complex (complex in a good way).
Now, before we get all breathlessly excited about this emerging category of new tools, remember that in every city there are lots of small to medium machine shops that employ lots of talented folks. I know some (I'm not one) who have machine tools in their garage and basements. Smaller, cheaper, computer-controlled machine tools will give more folks access, and it will allow those who are already skilled to buy more toys^h^hols.
A friend of mine has the motto that "Any worthwhile project for the house should result in the acquisition of another tool" Do you think I could justify one of
these
or these to help finish that shelf in the basement?
Re:What I found interesting.
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have seen many posts claiming that only an idiot would believe in God. Think of how many people now have proof that they are smarter than Donald Knuth.
I'm impressed that Knuth actively contemplates the existence of a god, and that he is willing to acknowledge his belief in public. That does not convince me that Christians (or Bhudists, or Muslims or Shintoists,...) are smarter than athiests or agnostics.
For me, Knuth's belief in a god does not have the same authority as his ability to prove the efficiency or convergence rate of an algorithm. Mathematics and other branches of science are a rational and testable form of knowledge. Belief in a diety must ultimately come down to a personal choice -- a leap of faith -- beyond the realm of rational.
I have contemplated this leap and find a deeper mystery and deeper satisfaction and deeper challenge in not believing in the existence of god. That does not make me smarter than Knuth. It just means that we have reached different conclusions about a very personal matter.
I'm thinking of the iPod mini as a USB flash drive that can play music. Quick check at NewEgg shows 512K flash drives for ~$50, so you can 'upgrade' to a music-playing flash drive for another $50. A nice way to rationalize an extra toy anyway. Of course, actually using it as a flash drive might mean deleting music.
Computer technology can help support learning, and that is especially useful in developing the higher-order skills of critical thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry.
Critical thinking, has to be independent of the tool employed. Using computers to teach criticial thinking is likely to interject more distraction into the process. I happen to agree with Clifford Stoll who says that learning is hard, and attempts to make it easier do not really help learning.
I do agree that computers can help support learning, but that potential is realized far less often that we are willing to admit.
For a relatively balanced and sobering analysis, please check out The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer. Try Oppenheimer's site at Booknoise, or Amazon
I read the Flickering Mind last summer, because I thought I should try something to challenge my assumptions about the value of technology. I (still) believe in the leverage offered by using computers to teach. However, after teaching engineering and numerical analysis for 15 years, I'm beginning to understand the limitations. For years I have been one of the strongest advocates in our department and college for using computer technology in the classroom. Now I try hard to highlight the differences between helpful and unhelpful uses of technology in the practice of engineering.
One of the problems with using technology in a teaching environment is that both students and teachers are easily mesmerized by the eye candy. Somehow we (collectively) have come to believe crappy ideas in a PowerPoint presentation are worth more than good ideas on a blackboard, or delivered with the minimum of distracting graphics.
Back to Oppenheimer...
In the first half of the book I was annoyed because Oppenheimer seemed to be so ignorant of the technical aspects of computing. I plowed on and began to be swayed. In the end, I'd say that I largely agree: Despite our best intentions, computers are often an impediment to true learning, especially at the elementary and middle school level.
I have an 8 year old son who shows little interest in computers despite plenty of opportunities. He is more interested in building things with everything from Legos to cardboard, tape, wire and sticks. When he was three or so, my wife and I decided that we were never going to limit his access to masking tape, despite our aversion for resource waste. As a result, he and I can now have conversations about how things are made: what holds them together; what kinds of materials are compatible; how you can make something stronger after it breaks. This interest of his is organic, I haven't tried to teach much of it to him. I only try to answer his questions.
One of our favorite joint activities is take apart, where we dismantle unwanted electronic junk like old PCs, injet printers, laserprinters, and FAX machines. For a while I was disappointed over my son's un-interest in computers (he's mostly just unimpressed, except by the graphics in games, which we limit). But now I'm very appreciative of his years of constructing things with tape. In the end I think computers have taught my son the most as cadavers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorance should never be treated as a virtue. And yet that is what is happening and this original post proves that this attitude is still alive.
Yes, still alive.
Not to sound like an old fart, but this is a very old problem that won't go away. It's easy to be frustrated by the infinite well of stupidity -- the human fate to play whack-a-mole with idiocy. For all the progress (including amazing tech) there's a tail in our intelligence distribution that is retrograde. Worse yet, there's a fraction in the intelligent part of the distribution that is cynical or lazy or evil.
To be clear, I agree with you. Stupidity pushes my buttons too. I differ in that I don't think it's a problem exclusive to modern society. I'm pretty sure that there never really "used to be a time when learning stuff was considered important" *in the sense* that most people thought that way. Rather, I think we've been lucky to benefit from the smart and non-cynical people who have, by virtue of their creativity and (perhaps, accidental) generosity, given us pretty usable tools of agriculture, commerce, art and humor to work with. Of course, those tools only work well for some of us and the negative side of those tools can be downright nasty to those without the means of most slashdot readers.
My point is that in spite of the large number of morons, I don't want to let that sap the infinitesimally small amount of good I just might be lucky enough to do without also, possibly, messing up in some colossal unintended way.
Peace.
There are no good guys in politics. They merely use those labels to cut down the number of people yelling at them by half.
Oh, of course.
And there are no fair-minded people on slashdot. They merely use absurdly broad generalizations instead of reason.
Modded insightful?
And no, I'm not new here.
For the hard drive, disassemble one in front of them and get their interest and curiosity.
Nice idea. A better way would be to let the kids do the disassembly. This is best done in small groups (say one or two kids per hard drive).
Make sure you extract the magnets for the drive head motor and show how strong they are.
Bonus: have rolls of masking tape, cardboard tubes, and extension wire in different colors (scrap ribbon cable is great). Ask the kids to "build a robot" from the parts.
Above all, don't take yourself or the role of teacher too seriously.
You're right, of course, that mass production is all about economies of scale. But distributed, personal-scale manufacturing has the potential to fuel innovation in a way that complements the centralized creation of manufactured goods. Specifically, folks who previously might not have been able to see their ideas turn into real hardware will be able to build stuff. In addition, putting small scale machine tools into high school and college labs will help remove some mysteries of manufacturing and (I would hope) inspire more folks from all backgrounds to develop interest in technology.
There will still be room for mass production. Personal scale manufacturing will just make the ecology of manufacturing more rich and complex (complex in a good way).
Now, before we get all breathlessly excited about this emerging category of new tools, remember that in every city there are lots of small to medium machine shops that employ lots of talented folks. I know some (I'm not one) who have machine tools in their garage and basements. Smaller, cheaper, computer-controlled machine tools will give more folks access, and it will allow those who are already skilled to buy more toys^h^hols.
A friend of mine has the motto that "Any worthwhile project for the house should result in the acquisition of another tool" Do you think I could justify one of these or these to help finish that shelf in the basement?
The technology exists but it is being suppressed by competitors.
I'm impressed that Knuth actively contemplates the existence of a god, and that he is willing to acknowledge his belief in public. That does not convince me that Christians (or Bhudists, or Muslims or Shintoists, ...) are smarter than athiests or agnostics.
For me, Knuth's belief in a god does not have the same authority as his ability to prove the efficiency or convergence rate of an algorithm. Mathematics and other branches of science are a rational and testable form of knowledge. Belief in a diety must ultimately come down to a personal choice -- a leap of faith -- beyond the realm of rational.
I have contemplated this leap and find a deeper mystery and deeper satisfaction and deeper challenge in not believing in the existence of god. That does not make me smarter than Knuth. It just means that we have reached different conclusions about a very personal matter.
I'm thinking of the iPod mini as a USB flash drive that can play music. Quick check at NewEgg shows 512K flash drives for ~$50, so you can 'upgrade' to a music-playing flash drive for another $50. A nice way to rationalize an extra toy anyway. Of course, actually using it as a flash drive might mean deleting music.
I do agree that computers can help support learning, but that potential is realized far less often that we are willing to admit.
For a relatively balanced and sobering analysis, please check out The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer. Try Oppenheimer's site at Booknoise, or Amazon
I read the Flickering Mind last summer, because I thought I should try something to challenge my assumptions about the value of technology. I (still) believe in the leverage offered by using computers to teach. However, after teaching engineering and numerical analysis for 15 years, I'm beginning to understand the limitations. For years I have been one of the strongest advocates in our department and college for using computer technology in the classroom. Now I try hard to highlight the differences between helpful and unhelpful uses of technology in the practice of engineering.
One of the problems with using technology in a teaching environment is that both students and teachers are easily mesmerized by the eye candy. Somehow we (collectively) have come to believe crappy ideas in a PowerPoint presentation are worth more than good ideas on a blackboard, or delivered with the minimum of distracting graphics.
Back to Oppenheimer ...
In the first half of the book I was annoyed because Oppenheimer seemed to be so ignorant of the technical aspects of computing. I plowed on and began to be swayed. In the end, I'd say that I largely agree: Despite our best intentions, computers are often an impediment to true learning, especially at the elementary and middle school level.
I have an 8 year old son who shows little interest in computers despite plenty of opportunities. He is more interested in building things with everything from Legos to cardboard, tape, wire and sticks. When he was three or so, my wife and I decided that we were never going to limit his access to masking tape, despite our aversion for resource waste. As a result, he and I can now have conversations about how things are made: what holds them together; what kinds of materials are compatible; how you can make something stronger after it breaks. This interest of his is organic, I haven't tried to teach much of it to him. I only try to answer his questions.
One of our favorite joint activities is take apart, where we dismantle unwanted electronic junk like old PCs, injet printers, laserprinters, and FAX machines. For a while I was disappointed over my son's un-interest in computers (he's mostly just unimpressed, except by the graphics in games, which we limit). But now I'm very appreciative of his years of constructing things with tape. In the end I think computers have taught my son the most as cadavers.
LZ