[continued from previous message]   
      
   > performance -- instead of having multiple pipeline stages to increase   
   > throughput!  And, no one would have thought to tell me about the   
   optimizations   
   > that I could have made in the hardware "from historical perspective".   
      
   I can remember picking up plenty from magazines. Including the cordic   
   algorithm.   
   Sorting out useful information from nonsense seems to be harder on the   
   Internet.   
      
   >   
   >>> We teach kids how to design algorithms using a completely bogus   
   "programming   
   >>> language" that exists nowhere else.  A handful of "opcodes" (move l/r/f/b,   
   >>> probe, rotate 90/180/270, etc.) that a 10 year old can easily understand   
   >>> (no concerns about overflow, exceptions, cancellation, races, etc.).  And,   
   >>> to which he can PHYSICALLY relate.   
   >>   
   >> Well you don't seem to be able to buy a simple SC/MP board and solder it   
   >> together yourself any more.   
   >   
   > Because folks have opted to buy "added value" from others.  I am always   
   amused   
   > at the rationale:  "So, we won't have to design a PCB!"  (Really?  That   
   > purchased board won't be a daughter card on some OTHER card THAT YOU DESIGN??   
   > What are you going to do when the supplier makes some change to some aspect   
   > of the subassembly -- particularly, the software?)   
   >   
   > Note that the market for EEs pays considerably less than software engineers   
   > so *it* has decided where the value added lies.  How many designs benefit   
   from   
   > all those "mother/daughter cards" designed by a handful of EEs?   
      
   I've had to rewrite a few software messes so that they actually worked with   
   the hardware.   
      
   >   
   >>> "Solve the maze"   
   >>>   
   >>> The income level or socio-economic status of the student plays no role in   
   how   
   >>> well they can perform.  Rather, assembling sequences of actions and   
   LEARNING   
   >>> from their shortcomings is the route to success.   
   >>>   
   >>> [It is highly unlikely that they will even use said language in a job --   
   or,   
   >>> ever be called upon to solve a maze!  Yet, they have learned how to learn.]   
   >>   
   >> Learn how to learn is fine but today's students do seem to have difficulty   
   solving   
   >> problems. Even when, these days,  the answer would be in their face if they   
   did a   
   >> bit of online research.   
   >   
   > They haven't been *required* to do so.  Someone always steps in to ease their   
   > burden.   
      
   Will we forget how to make anything electronic 50 years from now?   
   Or is it the plan for AI to take over by then?   
      
   >   
   > The class I mentioned above doesn't let the students feel inferior.   
      
   Much of the useful additional knowledge I had before starting work was not   
   learned in a do the homework and pass the test environment but rather it was   
   learned in a solve the problem and provide the result environment.   
   When I did start work I'd want to find the best solution to a problem, which   
   often wasn't the one I'd thought of myself.   
      
   > Their   
   > folks aren't clamoring to "pass" little Timmy even though his solution was   
   > suboptimal.  Timmy had fun.  Timmy LEARNED something.  AND, learned that he   
   > could learn from his peers instead of being preached at!   
   >   
   > We've designed the curriculum to challenge them with unanticipated -- though   
   > NOT unexpected! -- problems.   
   >   
   > E.g., we let them walk through a real maze (built from office partitions)   
   > blindfolded.  I.e., they can PROBE (with their hands), ROTATE their bodies,   
   > MOVE left/right/forward/backwards, etc.  But, can't SEE beyond their   
   immediate   
   > confines.   
      
   Sounds like fun.   
   Learning should be fun but often isn't.   
      
   >   
   > We then make the passageway wider (they almost universally extend their arms   
   > outwards to feel -- probe -- both walls in the first maze) so they can only   
   > probe in a single explicit direction.  I.e., they have to rely on a more   
   > open-loop strategy.   
   >   
   > They invariably "discover" the wall-following approach.   
   >   
   > Then, we bias the maze "the other way" -- so left hand following yields a   
   > faster solution than right hand -- and wait for them to sort out why their   
   > results were different.   
   >   
   > Then, we have them start in the CENTER of the maze and find their way out.   
   >   
   > Then, arrange for the center portion to be an *island* and have them   
   > sort out why nothing works, anymore.   
   >   
   > We don't care if they know the product of 1234567 * 7654321.  That's a skill   
   > they can learn on their own with time, patience and determination.  But,   
   > walking a maze is something they likely WON'T have an opportunity to do,   
   ever!   
   > And, thinking about HOW to walk the maze is even less likely to cross their   
   > minds!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)