Besides the box used to test Paul at the start of the first novel, there's also the "pain amplifiers" used by the Harkonnens - something you're put inside, that presumably bombards you with excruciation stimulation from all sides. We never find out too much about those, except that they exist and are - by the sounds of things - extremely nasty.
It's not so much the tech that's the problem, it's the model of what learning (and, in particular, learning with a computer) involves. You put something in front of a student's eyeballs, they fill in a form, you evaluate their response...that's a very limited kind of interaction.
With systems like Squeak and Logo, the student has a kind of virtual space to explore, and tools with which symbols and representations can be constructed, combined and manipulated. The idea behind these systems is not to "teach programming", but to enable the processes of knowing and learning to be objectified: the contents of the system represent things that can be known, ways of knowing, and new things that can be done with what one already knows. The computer isn't being a "teacher" (in the narrow sense of "instructor", someone who tells you stuff and then tests you on how well you've remembered it). It's a meta-tool, a tool for meta-cognition, and hence an aid for real learning.
Not that everything in the world of educational technology has to be Squeak and Logo, of course. There are other tools: talking books, that encourage the "reader" to investigate the "text" for hidden meanings and implicit patterns of information, so that their simple interactivity (click on part of a picture, see what happens) foregrounds the investigative dimension of literacy, the sense that a text is something to be probed and examined and that this investigative process is what real reading is.
The world of educational technology has moved on a lot since my first encounter with a BBC B in a primary school classroom, and the advances that matter haven't been primarily advances in technology, but advances in thinking about the uses of technology for education. The "computer-as-instructor" model is not only technologically stale, but is underwritten by an incredibly limited philosophy of education.
Ooh, gosh, wow, some software that asks some maths questions and then automatically marks the answers! Just like we used to have on the old BBC B in my primary school classroom!
Come on, this is way behind the curve. Even in that primary school classroom we had Logo...
It would be a really good thing if the world of Computer Science (I mean the real thing, with the formal methods and the big O notation and the simply-typed lambda calculus, not "how to become an Excel power-user") were to receive a sudden influx of mature students, especially female, from a variety of class and ethnic backgrounds.
It would mean that our societies had changed, dramatically, for the better, without the apparent necessity of intervention by government planners and public servants. Progress for free! Or, rather, progress paid for by those who instigated it, the price being their own time, energy and dedication.
It would make academic conferences more fun, and LtU a considerably more exciting read (although you'd still have to be the sort of person who's excited by process calculi and monadic subcontinuations to really get anything out of it).
It would mean that widespread acceptance of mediocrity - in programming languages, in software tools, in operating environments - was starting to crumble, as previously "elite" knowledge was disseminated among a wider community of empowered users and technicians.
It would be great. But it isn't happening now, and it's not likely to happen soon.
Maybe we should start thinking about how to make it happen?
So the light from the earth-shattering kaboom that's only just happened and that will cause mass extinction will reach us in ten years' time...and presumably there will be no way for us to know about it until it does...
...the.NET libraries are infinitely better than the cruft of Win32/MFC
Heh. As far as Windows.Forms is concerned, they are mostly just a thin wrapper of managed code around the cruft of Win32/MFC. The "clean break" is promised with Avalon. We'll see.
I shouldn't think that there's a large overlap between the set of people with sufficient knowledge about the web to have thought of that solution, and the set of people who would want to prevent deep linking in the first place.
Gnealogy - Google your family tree Ggee - Online betting on horse races Gpers-creepers - shower webcams and other services for voyeurs Gsus-saves - blasphemy-filtered searching for the born-again
Slashdot Mirror
Arthur will be reunited with Fenchurch...
...who, to Arthur's chagrin, will be in a lesbian relationship with Trillian.
Besides the box used to test Paul at the start of the first novel, there's also the "pain amplifiers" used by the Harkonnens - something you're put inside, that presumably bombards you with excruciation stimulation from all sides. We never find out too much about those, except that they exist and are - by the sounds of things - extremely nasty.
Just don't buy d'Anconia copper. That's all I'm saying...
It's not so much the tech that's the problem, it's the model of what learning (and, in particular, learning with a computer) involves. You put something in front of a student's eyeballs, they fill in a form, you evaluate their response...that's a very limited kind of interaction.
With systems like Squeak and Logo, the student has a kind of virtual space to explore, and tools with which symbols and representations can be constructed, combined and manipulated. The idea behind these systems is not to "teach programming", but to enable the processes of knowing and learning to be objectified: the contents of the system represent things that can be known, ways of knowing, and new things that can be done with what one already knows. The computer isn't being a "teacher" (in the narrow sense of "instructor", someone who tells you stuff and then tests you on how well you've remembered it). It's a meta-tool, a tool for meta-cognition, and hence an aid for real learning.
Not that everything in the world of educational technology has to be Squeak and Logo, of course. There are other tools: talking books, that encourage the "reader" to investigate the "text" for hidden meanings and implicit patterns of information, so that their simple interactivity (click on part of a picture, see what happens) foregrounds the investigative dimension of literacy, the sense that a text is something to be probed and examined and that this investigative process is what real reading is.
The world of educational technology has moved on a lot since my first encounter with a BBC B in a primary school classroom, and the advances that matter haven't been primarily advances in technology, but advances in thinking about the uses of technology for education. The "computer-as-instructor" model is not only technologically stale, but is underwritten by an incredibly limited philosophy of education.
Ooh, gosh, wow, some software that asks some maths questions and then automatically marks the answers! Just like we used to have on the old BBC B in my primary school classroom!
Come on, this is way behind the curve. Even in that primary school classroom we had Logo...
It would be a really good thing if the world of Computer Science (I mean the real thing, with the formal methods and the big O notation and the simply-typed lambda calculus, not "how to become an Excel power-user") were to receive a sudden influx of mature students, especially female, from a variety of class and ethnic backgrounds.
It would mean that our societies had changed, dramatically, for the better, without the apparent necessity of intervention by government planners and public servants. Progress for free! Or, rather, progress paid for by those who instigated it, the price being their own time, energy and dedication.
It would make academic conferences more fun, and LtU a considerably more exciting read (although you'd still have to be the sort of person who's excited by process calculi and monadic subcontinuations to really get anything out of it).
It would mean that widespread acceptance of mediocrity - in programming languages, in software tools, in operating environments - was starting to crumble, as previously "elite" knowledge was disseminated among a wider community of empowered users and technicians.
It would be great. But it isn't happening now, and it's not likely to happen soon.
Maybe we should start thinking about how to make it happen?
W00t!
Engage the services of some l33t Lisp Hackers. And eschew curly braces!
It's the most obvious USP.
So the light from the earth-shattering kaboom that's only just happened and that will cause mass extinction will reach us in ten years' time...and presumably there will be no way for us to know about it until it does...
Heh. As far as Windows.Forms is concerned, they are mostly just a thin wrapper of managed code around the cruft of Win32/MFC. The "clean break" is promised with Avalon. We'll see.
Still nicer to work with, tho'.
I shouldn't think that there's a large overlap between the set of people with sufficient knowledge about the web to have thought of that solution, and the set of people who would want to prevent deep linking in the first place.
Also:
Gnealogy - Google your family tree
Ggee - Online betting on horse races
Gpers-creepers - shower webcams and other services for voyeurs
Gsus-saves - blasphemy-filtered searching for the born-again