[PLUG-TALK] reliance on technology (was: Redhat changes, fedora)

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Wed Nov 5 22:09:24 UTC 2003


* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-11-05 11:52]:
> 
> You sent two copies again.

Deal with it.

I'm human, and sometimes I forget to hit "L". When I don't, and hit "g",
this list sends to everyone in the message. Worse, if I hit "r", it
sends to your only. Most of the lists I'm on respond to the list when I
hit "r".

> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > Basic understanding, I can agree to. Working knowledge. Nope. Won't ever
> > happen. I would venture to guess that if you had to build your own
> > bicycle from scratch, that you don't have a working knowledge of, or
> > access to, a blast furnace.
> 
> Again, the message explicitly mentioned manufacturing techniques.
> 
> Access to resources isn't nearly as important as understanding the
> concepts.

If you've never done it, then I suggest that you still have no clue.
There's a big difference between book learning, and practical knowledge. 

One thing I've learned in 25 years working in the real world is that
many folks right out of college have a lot of book knowledge, but no
practical experience, and this usually translates to poor work
performance. 

Once they figure that out, and start to get some practical experience on how things really work, things get better. 

You won't believe me until you are older. 

> > Once we reach a certain level of technology, it's impossible for one
> > person to understand everything about everything. To attempt to do so is
> > to set yourself up for failure.
> 
> If you're not setting yourself up for failure, your goals are too low.

There's also a difference between having realistic goals, and
unattainable goals. I choose realistic goals. 

Repeated failure is one path to depression. That's not a path I choose.

> > I have an understanding of how most of the stuff I come in contact with
> > works. I believe you are the same. At the same time, I realize that it's
> > impossible for me to "know it all". There's not time in my life for
> > that, even if my brain has that capacity.
> 
> But you can try... and keep trying.  And try to stay away from stuff that
> you believe you can't ever understand.

There are certain things I'm simply not interested in learning how they
work, yet I want to benefit from the device. 

> > Then, there are folks that I just don't want messing with the
> > technology.
> 
> That's not for you to say.

Well, when they blow up whatever they're working on, I hope I'm out of
range. 

> 
> > > I've always said that if I have children, they can't have any toys
> > > until they can tell me how they work.  That means, of course, nothing
> > > but solid objects and obvious simple machines for a few years.
> >
> > And by doing so, you limit them. You've just eliminated one of the best
> > learning tools there is.
> 
> No, I've just increased the motivation to learn.

You don't need to motivate a 3 year old to learn. Everything is a
learning experience. However, you can stunt their learning by keeping
learning experiences from them. 

> > My parents gave me my first bicycle when I was 3.
> 
> I don't know any three-year-olds with the balance for a bicycle.  I've
> seen a few five-year-olds that are quite competent unicyclists, however.

Ever heard of training wheels? My bike had them until I was almost four.
I took them off myself because I was tired of not being able to tilt.

> 
> > By 5 I was taking it apart and putting back together. Without doing
> > that, (on my own, without any help from my parents) I may not have the
> > mechanical skills I have today.
> 
> I think that anyone can understand and explain how a bicycle works by 5...
> at least one without an internally geared hub or indexed derailleur.

Can they take it apart and put it back together without help?

I believe they could give a basic description. You pedal, and it goes.
Pedal backwards and it stops (maybe). The wheels turn. The handlebars go
like this (wiggles left and right). 

Nothing about balance, gyroscopic forces, gravity, or kinetic energy. Which are
all part of how a bicycle works.

> > First of all, small children only learn by touch.
> 
> That's crazy talk.

The word "only" should have been primarily.

> > They can't read, so they can't learn by studying books.
> 
> They can build and experiment and listen.  And I was reading with decent
> comprehension by 3.

You weren't reading manuals for complex machines. I was reading before
kindergarten, but it was Dr. Suess and other books like that. 

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #5 (Collect all 21)
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right." - Mohandas K. Ghandi




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list