Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161395 > unrolled thread

Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

Started by	Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com>
First post	2016-03-23 02:31 -0700
Last post	2016-03-30 14:56 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 401 — 44 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 15 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 21 Next page →

#162856

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-04-22 07:12 +0100
Message-ID	<20160422071245.ddc72eea58f664b95e5f5c3a@eircom.net>
In reply to	#162791

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:11:53 +1000
"3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
> news:20160415170944.524b66b6c9836c29865239ec@eircom.net...
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:00:35 -0400
> > Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <MPG.317751437839b71198a0c5@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>  "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > No, helicopter parenting and parental fear of the big bad world does
> >> > that.  I suspect that in the modern world my parents would have been
> >> > arrested for letting me do the sorts of things that I and my friends
> >> > did.  I suspect that if they knew, _they_ would have been horrified.
> >>
> >> Good thing they didn't find out then. Small children need to do things
> >> that would horrify there parents for normal development. Many adults
> >> completely forget their childhood, apparently.
> >
> > Either that or they remember it, wonder how they ever survived
> > unmaimed and become determined to ensure that their children never take
> > such risks.
> 
> Not even possible with that last.
> 
> Mate of mine's #1 son ended up with a broken arm after showing
> off to his mates riding his bike along the top of a waist height
> brick wall in the school in the school holidays. 

	Being determined does not ensure success, kids are resourceful.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162883

From	"3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-23 05:33 +1000
Message-ID	<dnvcktFtfp8U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#162856


"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20160422071245.ddc72eea58f664b95e5f5c3a@eircom.net...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:11:53 +1000
> "3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:20160415170944.524b66b6c9836c29865239ec@eircom.net...
>> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:00:35 -0400
>> > Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <MPG.317751437839b71198a0c5@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>  "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > No, helicopter parenting and parental fear of the big bad world does
>> >> > that.  I suspect that in the modern world my parents would have been
>> >> > arrested for letting me do the sorts of things that I and my friends
>> >> > did.  I suspect that if they knew, _they_ would have been horrified.
>> >>
>> >> Good thing they didn't find out then. Small children need to do things
>> >> that would horrify there parents for normal development. Many adults
>> >> completely forget their childhood, apparently.
>> >
>> > Either that or they remember it, wonder how they ever survived
>> > unmaimed and become determined to ensure that their children never take
>> > such risks.
>>
>> Not even possible with that last.
>>
>> Mate of mine's #1 son ended up with a broken arm after showing
>> off to his mates riding his bike along the top of a waist height
>> brick wall in the school in the school holidays.
>
> Being determined does not ensure success, kids are resourceful.

But it just isnt possible to be determined to ensure that their kids
never take such risks unless they supervise their kids at all times. And
that isnt possible either, most obviously with their time in school.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162518

From	Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Date	2016-04-15 14:20 -0400
Message-ID	<alpine.LNX.2.02.1604151414130.17695@darkstar.example.org>
In reply to	#162502

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Walter Bushell wrote:

> In article <MPG.317751437839b71198a0c5@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, helicopter parenting and parental fear of the big bad world does
>> that.  I suspect that in the modern world my parents would have been
>> arrested for letting me do the sorts of things that I and my friends
>> did.  I suspect that if they knew, _they_ would have been horrified.
>
> Good thing they didn't find out then. Small children need to do things
> that would horrify there parents for normal development. Many adults
> completely forget their childhood, apparently.
>
Babies and small children are hackers, they learn about the world through 
experience.  They are even able to figure out how to talk, so long as they 
get spoken to enough.  There, the teacher is the relationship, a need to 
communicate with this young being, so adults talk to the kids and they 
learn from it.

When I spent a lot of time with the daughter of a friend decades ago, I 
realized I wasn't willing to stop her from exploring, but I was terrified 
that something would happen to her.  So I interacted with her on a very 
deep basis, if she wanted to climb up and see something, I'd be there to 
catch her if she needed it.  It was the same once she could walk, she was 
fascinated by stairs.  So I let her walk, and I was always on the step 
below her, in case she fell.

There's a difference between stopping them from doing things, and putting 
a net under them.

When she was older, we were at the playground one time, and she climbed to 
the top of the climbing bars, and looked towards me, one time I wasn't 
paying so much attention.  And I realized she was going to jump, and since 
she was doing it by herself (nobody else around to talk her into doing 
something she wasn't prepared for), I didn't say anything.  She jumped and 
all was fine. Though 25 years or so later, I still sort of think about how 
might have turned different, there was always the slight possibility that 
she'd break an arm or a leg, then I'd have to explain it to her mother. 
But she was being careful, and that's the best that can be.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162528

From	Morten Reistzd <first@last.name.invalid>
Date	2016-04-16 00:38 +0200
Message-ID	<p378uc-a5h.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to	#162518

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604151414130.17695@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black  <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.317751437839b71198a0c5@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, helicopter parenting and parental fear of the big bad world does
>>> that.  I suspect that in the modern world my parents would have been
>>> arrested for letting me do the sorts of things that I and my friends
>>> did.  I suspect that if they knew, _they_ would have been horrified.
>>
>> Good thing they didn't find out then. Small children need to do things
>> that would horrify there parents for normal development. Many adults
>> completely forget their childhood, apparently.
>>
>Babies and small children are hackers, they learn about the world through 
>experience.  They are even able to figure out how to talk, so long as they 
>get spoken to enough.  There, the teacher is the relationship, a need to 
>communicate with this young being, so adults talk to the kids and they 
>learn from it.
>
>When I spent a lot of time with the daughter of a friend decades ago, I 
>realized I wasn't willing to stop her from exploring, but I was terrified 
>that something would happen to her.  So I interacted with her on a very 
>deep basis, if she wanted to climb up and see something, I'd be there to 
>catch her if she needed it.  It was the same once she could walk, she was 
>fascinated by stairs.  So I let her walk, and I was always on the step 
>below her, in case she fell.
>
>There's a difference between stopping them from doing things, and putting 
>a net under them.
>
>When she was older, we were at the playground one time, and she climbed to 
>the top of the climbing bars, and looked towards me, one time I wasn't 
>paying so much attention.  And I realized she was going to jump, and since 
>she was doing it by herself (nobody else around to talk her into doing 
>something she wasn't prepared for), I didn't say anything.  She jumped and 
>all was fine. Though 25 years or so later, I still sort of think about how 
>might have turned different, there was always the slight possibility that 
>she'd break an arm or a leg, then I'd have to explain it to her mother. 
>But she was being careful, and that's the best that can be.

I grew up in the 1960s, and we generally roamed free, but in a quite
limited area we were told never to leave. But we had a full farm and
small forest within the area. We climbed every tree that was climbable. 
diverted the little stream and put a little homemade turbine in it, 
were generally scared of the cows that roamed around.

At least some neighbour could probably see us at all times, but we were
never closely supervised. 

And around half the kids in my class broke an arm or a leg at some time
from 2nd to 6th grade. I just had my ankle disjointed in a football match.
At the hospital they just gave me a large shot of morphine and two medical
students snapped it back into place. 

None of this was anything out of the ordinary then.

We were lucky to have that upbringing.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162534

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2016-04-16 01:45 +0000
Message-ID	<nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#162528

On 2016-04-15, Morten Reistzd <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> I grew up in the 1960s, and we generally roamed free, but in a quite
> limited area we were told never to leave. But we had a full farm and
> small forest within the area. We climbed every tree that was climbable. 
> diverted the little stream and put a little homemade turbine in it, 
> were generally scared of the cows that roamed around.
>
> At least some neighbour could probably see us at all times, but we were
> never closely supervised. 
>
> And around half the kids in my class broke an arm or a leg at some time
> from 2nd to 6th grade. I just had my ankle disjointed in a football match.
> At the hospital they just gave me a large shot of morphine and two medical
> students snapped it back into place. 
>
> None of this was anything out of the ordinary then.
>
> We were lucky to have that upbringing.

Indeed - and I think this is one of the biggest things that kids nowadays
are missing out on.  It's one of the biggest downsides to today's
urbanization.

Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162566

From	hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Date	2016-04-16 13:03 -0700
Message-ID	<78b12bcd-a116-422c-b9ec-79265a7e61de@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#162534

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:43:21 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...

These days, parents are obsessed with organized sports for their
kids.  The parents are very competitive.  Plenty of kids do get
various injuries, and the parents seem fine with that.

(Actually, this goes back to Little League of the 1960s, see Alan
King's book on life in the suburbs, circa 1961.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162622

From	Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
Date	2016-04-17 11:26 -0400
Message-ID	<proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>
In reply to	#162534

In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...

Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162624

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-17 11:40 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.317d788032c9335798a0fb@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#162622

In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com 
says...
> 
> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
>  Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
> > considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
> > to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...
> 
> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).

I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm 
coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.  
Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual effort 
("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to 
working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very 
systematic.

So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with a 
better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in 
education.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162626

From	Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-04-17 12:09 -0400
Message-ID	<1186530471.482601593.660771.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#162624

J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com 
> says...
>> 
>> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
>>> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
>>> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...
>> 
>> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).
> 
> I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm 
> coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.  
> Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual effort 
> ("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to 
> working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very 
> systematic.
> 
> So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with a 
> better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in 
> education.
> 

Interesting insight.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162643

From	Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
Date	2016-04-17 20:23 -0400
Message-ID	<alpine.LNX.2.02.1604172018450.21819@darkstar.example.org>
In reply to	#162624

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com
> says...
>>
>> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
>>  Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
>>> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
>>> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...
>>
>> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).
>
> I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm
> coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.
> Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual effort
> ("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to
> working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very
> systematic.
>
> So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with a
> better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in
> education.
>
Oh yes, such as defining the outsiders, ie the ones who don't play along.

Nothing like being the last one picked when it's about team sports, then 
everyone mad at you because you aren't interested in the game and aren't 
any good.  It's not my choosing, I was only in gym because it was 
compulsory.

The only thing I got out of gym was the time when I was finally fed up 
with it, and stood up to the teacher.  I expected the worst, but it wasn't 
fair being put in the position of it being compulsory but not being 
interested or caring.  It fixed things well, my first political action, 
those of us not interested, and I wasn't the only one, got to run laps 
around the balcony that was part of the gym, while the others continued 
with their volleyball game.

Most people are "really good" at being part of the team, but that doesn't 
make them good thinkers or anything else.

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162646

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-17 21:33 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.317e036388abbc5098a0fd@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#162643

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604172018450.21819@darkstar.example.org>, 
et472@ncf.ca says...
> 
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, J. Clarke wrote:
> 
> > In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
> >>  Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
> >>> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
> >>> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...
> >>
> >> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).
> >
> > I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm
> > coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.
> > Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual effort
> > ("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to
> > working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very
> > systematic.
> >
> > So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with a
> > better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in
> > education.
> >
> Oh yes, such as defining the outsiders, ie the ones who don't play along.
> 
> Nothing like being the last one picked when it's about team sports, then 
> everyone mad at you because you aren't interested in the game and aren't 
> any good.  It's not my choosing, I was only in gym because it was 
> compulsory.
> 
> The only thing I got out of gym was the time when I was finally fed up 
> with it, and stood up to the teacher.  I expected the worst, but it wasn't 
> fair being put in the position of it being compulsory but not being 
> interested or caring.  It fixed things well, my first political action, 
> those of us not interested, and I wasn't the only one, got to run laps 
> around the balcony that was part of the gym, while the others continued 
> with their volleyball game.
> 
> Most people are "really good" at being part of the team, but that doesn't 
> make them good thinkers or anything else.

To be successful in fields such as engineering, you have to both be a 
good thinker and able to play on a team.  And a lot of "good thinkers" 
aren't good at playing on a team.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162843

From	"3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-22 13:49 +1000
Message-ID	<dntlaqFfracU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#162646


"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.317e036388abbc5098a0fd@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604172018450.21819@darkstar.example.org>,
> et472@ncf.ca says...
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, 
>> > proto@panix.com
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
>> >>  Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
>> >>> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
>> >>> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread 
>> >>> drift...
>> >>
>> >> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).
>> >
>> > I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm
>> > coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.
>> > Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual 
>> > effort
>> > ("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to
>> > working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very
>> > systematic.
>> >
>> > So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with 
>> > a
>> > better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in
>> > education.
>> >
>> Oh yes, such as defining the outsiders, ie the ones who don't play along.
>>
>> Nothing like being the last one picked when it's about team sports, then
>> everyone mad at you because you aren't interested in the game and aren't
>> any good.  It's not my choosing, I was only in gym because it was
>> compulsory.
>>
>> The only thing I got out of gym was the time when I was finally fed up
>> with it, and stood up to the teacher.  I expected the worst, but it 
>> wasn't
>> fair being put in the position of it being compulsory but not being
>> interested or caring.  It fixed things well, my first political action,
>> those of us not interested, and I wasn't the only one, got to run laps
>> around the balcony that was part of the gym, while the others continued
>> with their volleyball game.
>>
>> Most people are "really good" at being part of the team, but that doesn't
>> make them good thinkers or anything else.
>
> To be successful in fields such as engineering, you have to both be a
> good thinker and able to play on a team.

Depends on the engineering with that last.

> And a lot of "good thinkers"
> aren't good at playing on a team.

There are plenty successful at engineering who aren't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162649

From	Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
Date	2016-04-17 20:36 -0700
Message-ID	<4el8hbh8g0i847ktjjnqj9tvvlhsfat0qg@4ax.com>
In reply to	#162643

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:23:08 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
>>>  Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
>>>> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
>>>> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...
>>>
>>> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).
>>
>> I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm
>> coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.
>> Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual effort
>> ("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to
>> working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very
>> systematic.
>>
>> So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with a
>> better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in
>> education.
>>
>Oh yes, such as defining the outsiders, ie the ones who don't play along.
>
>Nothing like being the last one picked when it's about team sports, then 
>everyone mad at you because you aren't interested in the game and aren't 
>any good.  It's not my choosing, I was only in gym because it was 
>compulsory.

     Another aspect of it is that it often is not taught much so if
one does not already know the sport, one never gets the chance to
learn it in class.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162661

From	jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date	2016-04-18 12:38 +0000
Message-ID	<PM000530C1A93306A7@aca4166a.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to	#162643

Michael Black wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> In article <proto-B7A691.11264417042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In article <nes5eu02pbu@news6.newsguy.com>,
>>>  Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ironically, in some situations (e.g. contact sports) it seem to be
>>>> considered acceptable (or at least much less unacceptable) for a kid
>>>> to break an arm or a leg.  But that's a topic for future thread drift...
>>>
>>> Of curse. Sports are (IMPORTANT!).
>>
>> I was never big on sports, still am not in my personal life, but I'm
>> coming to realize that team sports have a role that is often neglected.
>> Most of what passes for education requires and rewards individual effort
>> ("do your own work").  The only place that there's any exposure to
>> working as a team is in phys-ed and there it's usually not very
>> systematic.
>>
>> So I'm coming around to the viewpoint that until someone comes up with a
>> better approach, sports does have a significant and important role in
>> education.
>>
> Oh yes, such as defining the outsiders, ie the ones who don't play along.
>
> Nothing like being the last one picked when it's about team sports, then
> everyone mad at you because you aren't interested in the game and aren't
> any good.  It's not my choosing, I was only in gym because it was
> compulsory.
>
> The only thing I got out of gym was the time when I was finally fed up
> with it, and stood up to the teacher.  I expected the worst, but it wasn't
> fair being put in the position of it being compulsory but not being
> interested or caring.  It fixed things well, my first political action,
> those of us not interested, and I wasn't the only one, got to run laps
> around the balcony that was part of the gym, while the others continued
> with their volleyball game.
>
> Most people are "really good" at being part of the team, but that doesn't
> make them good thinkers or anything else.


It doesn't encourage thinking outside the box or the team dynamics.
The leader of the team (the real one, not the assigned one) has
to know how to herd the rest.  Sometimes, that happens in a
(elhi school) sports team but rarely.  Most of the jocks are
too self-important to help non-team members of the class.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162693

From	"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com>
Date	2016-04-18 15:39 -0500
Message-ID	<nf3gfd$h99$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#162643

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1604172018450.21819@darkstar.example.org...
>
>           [snip...]                            [snip...] 
> [snip...]
>
> Most people are "really good" at being part of the team, but that doesn't 
> make them good thinkers or anything else.
>

If you are good at being part of the team, that makes you a "team player". 
The things that us nerds (I think most in <a.f.c.> could be classed as 
nerds) *like* to forget is that we live in a society... a social context. 
Societal rules and conventions do *not* always make logical sense and are 
*not* always "fair", but ISTM that we are forced to find a way to interface 
with society and "fit in" somehow.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162851

From	"3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-22 14:25 +1000
Message-ID	<dntnedFga9aU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#162693


"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message 
news:nf3gfd$h99$1@dont-email.me...
> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1604172018450.21819@darkstar.example.org...
>>
>>           [snip...]                            [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Most people are "really good" at being part of the team, but that doesn't 
>> make them good thinkers or anything else.
>>
>
> If you are good at being part of the team, that makes you a "team player". 
> The things that us nerds (I think most in <a.f.c.> could be classed as 
> nerds) *like* to forget is that we live in a society... a social context. 
> Societal rules and conventions do *not* always make logical sense and are 
> *not* always "fair", but ISTM that we are forced to find a way to 
> interface with society and "fit in" somehow.

Plenty of us are just careful to not get caught when flouting
some of the less important societal rules like driving faster
than the speed limit etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162543

From	mausg@mail.com
Date	2016-04-16 09:44 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnnh42bl.18p.mausg@Smaus.org>
In reply to	#162528

On 2016-04-15, Morten Reistzd <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604151414130.17695@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black  <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>
>
> At least some neighbour could probably see us at all times, but we were
> never closely supervised. 
>
> And around half the kids in my class broke an arm or a leg at some time
> from 2nd to 6th grade. I just had my ankle disjointed in a football match.
> At the hospital they just gave me a large shot of morphine and two medical
> students snapped it back into place. 
>
> None of this was anything out of the ordinary then.
>
> We were lucky to have that upbringing.
>
> -- mrr
>

I have an in-law that grew up in the country, now lives in semi-suburbia,
We went down to see them once, a couple of six-packs and he was moaning 
about how the youngsters nowadays don't hack at cars as we  did then, 
back in thge 50s-60s, I asked him what he would do if one of his took 
apart a couple of cars to see if they could be  joined at bell-housing.
with leaking oil, etc, on his forcourt. No way.

Welived in a magical time, everything could be hacked with. Now, little can.

-- 
greymaus

iD|marrA Raa|fLa 
Ireland

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162545

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-16 06:56 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.317be46ddda17a2e98a0e4@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#162543

In article <slrnnh42bl.18p.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> 
> On 2016-04-15, Morten Reistzd <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604151414130.17695@darkstar.example.org>,
> > Michael Black  <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>
> >
> > At least some neighbour could probably see us at all times, but we were
> > never closely supervised. 
> >
> > And around half the kids in my class broke an arm or a leg at some time
> > from 2nd to 6th grade. I just had my ankle disjointed in a football match.
> > At the hospital they just gave me a large shot of morphine and two medical
> > students snapped it back into place. 
> >
> > None of this was anything out of the ordinary then.
> >
> > We were lucky to have that upbringing.
> >
> > -- mrr
> >
> 
> I have an in-law that grew up in the country, now lives in semi-suburbia,
> We went down to see them once, a couple of six-packs and he was moaning 
> about how the youngsters nowadays don't hack at cars as we  did then, 
> back in thge 50s-60s, I asked him what he would do if one of his took 
> apart a couple of cars to see if they could be  joined at bell-housing.
> with leaking oil, etc, on his forcourt. No way.
> 
> Welived in a magical time, everything could be hacked with. Now, little can.

Kids today hack cars you know, in the "hacker" sense.  In the '50s you 
had to understand carburetors, now you have to understand ECUs--same 
ojbective, different technique.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162565

From	Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
Date	2016-04-16 16:09 -0300
Message-ID	<87inzh1ic0.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to	#162545

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> In article <slrnnh42bl.18p.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
>
>> We lived in a magical time, everything could be hacked with. Now,
>> little can.
> 
> Kids today hack cars you know, in the "hacker" sense.  In the '50s
> you had to understand carburetors, now you have to understand
> ECUs--same ojbective, different technique.

Not just "technique" is different.  Until circa 1965, everything was
analogue.  You could figure out how it worked by taking it apart.  Now
you can't.  You need original documentation, sophisticated
instumentation, advanced knowledge of tech.

In the 60s, I worked at "BJ's Foreign Auto".  Bud had been in the US
Navy in WW II, worked in Britain for a few years afterward as a
mechanic, later opened his own business in Leftpondia. In a university
twon with crazy kids and eccentric professors, we saw all kinds of
weird European cars, many of which were never commercialy exported to
the US.  When we got a car with the engine in the wrong end, installed
(notionally) backwards (Panhard) or one with belts and pulleys instead
of a transmission (DKW, IIRC) or propellers and hull (Amphicar) or
worn parts that would take 6 months to get from Italy (Lancia) and
were giving it the doubtful eye, Bud would say, "A man made it.  A man
can fix it!"  And we would do just that.

No longer.  A computer designed it -- often "in its own image, after
its likeness" -- and robot made it.  Such are at least still analogue
physical objects but often designed intentionally not to be
repairable.

Hacking anything with a proprietary digital black box is not even
slightly the same kind of thing as hacking real hardware.  Hacking a
desktop computer, even with extensive documentation and kernel source
available, is not even slightly the same kind of thing -- as I am
currently seeing, trying to solve a problem with excessive memory
usage when writing to a newly installed HD.  Solutions offered on
Usenet are mostly, "Upgrade to a newer kernel."  Nobody says that
about my 1936 Pierce Arrow.

Hacking analog hardware is open to kids with a certain cognitive style
that tilts to spatial relations and attention to visual detail.
Hacking a car's coupter module(s) isn't open to anyone who hasn't read
a vast amount of technical literature.

1947:  Bud and Lefty Griswold burned out a rod bearing on their old
heap in trials for a stock car race.  No parts, no time.  Lefty
crawled under the car, dropped the pan, replaced the bearing with
a piece of leather cut from his belt, bolted it all up.  They won the
race.  Let's hear it for analogue.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162576

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-16 18:35 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.317c883a43a94ee598a0f0@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#162565

In article <87inzh1ic0.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, 
mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere says...
> 
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In article <slrnnh42bl.18p.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> >
> >> We lived in a magical time, everything could be hacked with. Now,
> >> little can.
> > 
> > Kids today hack cars you know, in the "hacker" sense.  In the '50s
> > you had to understand carburetors, now you have to understand
> > ECUs--same ojbective, different technique.
> 
> Not just "technique" is different.  Until circa 1965, everything was
> analogue.  You could figure out how it worked by taking it apart.  Now
> you can't.

Of course you can.  You just need the right tools.

> You need original documentation, sophisticated
> instumentation, advanced knowledge of tech.

You consider this all to be "advanced" because you're not familiar with 
it.  Car-obsessed high-schoolers today are quite capble of pulling a ROM 
image from an ECU and figuring out how it works.

And try fiddling a carburetor with no understanding of the mechanism.

> In the 60s, I worked at "BJ's Foreign Auto".  Bud had been in the US
> Navy in WW II, worked in Britain for a few years afterward as a
> mechanic, later opened his own business in Leftpondia. In a university
> twon with crazy kids and eccentric professors, we saw all kinds of
> weird European cars, many of which were never commercialy exported to
> the US.  When we got a car with the engine in the wrong end, installed
> (notionally) backwards (Panhard) or one with belts and pulleys instead
> of a transmission (DKW, IIRC) or propellers and hull (Amphicar) or
> worn parts that would take 6 months to get from Italy (Lancia) and
> were giving it the doubtful eye, Bud would say, "A man made it.  A man
> can fix it!"  And we would do just that.
> 
> No longer.  A computer designed it -- often "in its own image, after
> its likeness" -- and robot made it.  Such are at least still analogue
> physical objects but often designed intentionally not to be
> repairable.

If you think that computers do engineering design you've never worked as 
an engineer.  The computer is a useful tool that supplementes a variety 
of other useful tools and in some cases replaces them.  But it does not 
design anything.

And a robot can't do anything that a machinist with a well equipped shop 
can't do, it can just do it faster and with less scrap.

> Hacking anything with a proprietary digital black box is not even
> slightly the same kind of thing as hacking real hardware.

It is hacking real hardware.  Electronics is mysterious to you so you 
don't see hacking it as having anything to do with hardware.

> Hacking a
> desktop computer, even with extensive documentation and kernel source
> available, is not even slightly the same kind of thing -- as I am
> currently seeing, trying to solve a problem with excessive memory
> usage when writing to a newly installed HD.  Solutions offered on
> Usenet are mostly, "Upgrade to a newer kernel."  Nobody says that
> about my 1936 Pierce Arrow.

That has nothing to do with it being a computer and everything to do 
with current operating systems being baroque monstrosities with so much 
cruft attached that nobody can understand them in their entirety.

Imagine an engine with 413 cyinders all of different sizes, with 28,000 
camshafts working a half a million valves, and a different kind of 
carburetor feeding each intake valve, and you begin to understand the 
difficulty with modern operating systems.

ECUs don't run Linux.

> Hacking analog hardware is open to kids with a certain cognitive style
> that tilts to spatial relations and attention to visual detail.
> Hacking a car's coupter module(s) isn't open to anyone who hasn't read
> a vast amount of technical literature.

Actually it's open to kids with a certain cognitive style that tilts to 
understanding algorithms.

> 1947:  Bud and Lefty Griswold burned out a rod bearing on their old
> heap in trials for a stock car race.  No parts, no time.  Lefty
> crawled under the car, dropped the pan, replaced the bearing with
> a piece of leather cut from his belt, bolted it all up.  They won the
> race.  Let's hear it for analogue.

And you think that bearings have computers in them?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 15 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 21 Next page →

csiph-web

Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

Contents

#162856

#162883

#162518

#162528

#162534

#162566

#162622

#162624

#162626

#162643

#162646

#162843

#162649

#162661

#162693

#162851

#162543

#162545

#162565

#162576