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

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Nov 5 22:29:54 UTC 2003


On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> * Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-11-05 11:52]:
> > You sent two copies again.
>
> 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".

Perhaps you should use a mail client that actually honors the Reply-To:
header as per RFC.

I mean, if you're going to munge, at least let it work for you SOMETIMES.

> > 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.

Agreed, of course, but the leap from book knowledge to full understanding
through practical experience is MUCH shorter than the leap from practical
experience to full understanding.

With a solid foundation in theoretical knowledge, you are able to stand on
the shoulders of the giants, whereas hands-on experience means starting
from scratch.

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

...and it doesn't take much time for a reasonably intelligent person.

> You won't believe me until you are older.

That's condescending bullshit, Russell.  You're trying to one-up me and
the only thing you've got on me is a few years, so you try to leverage
that where it doesn't matter at all.

>> 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.

Then you'll never be better than you imagined.

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

If you understand in advance that perfection is unatainable, there is no
failure.

>> 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 you're willfully ignorant and a leech.

>>> 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.

Perhaps you need a cabin in Montana.

> 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.

Nobody said anything about cloistering.  I'm just talking about the
child's personalty.

There's a whole lot of world outside that... including my stuff.

>>> 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.

Ah.  That's not a bicycle, but I get your drift.

> I took them off myself because I was tired of not being able to tilt.

Heh, a two-wheel conversion project.

>> 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?

That's not important yet.  That can be learned relatively quickly when the
need arises.

> I believe they could give a basic description.

That's all you need.

> You pedal, and it goes. Pedal backwards and it stops (maybe). The wheels
> turn. The handlebars go like this (wiggles left and right).

That's how you work it, not how it works.  Huge difference.

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

Balance isn't something that needs description.  The basics to describing
how a bicycle works are the simple chain drive (for bikes with those) and
the gyroscopic force.  That's it.  Kids can get that by four.

>>> First of all, small children only learn by touch.
>> That's crazy talk.
>
> The word "only" should have been primarily.

And you can't back that up, either.

> > > 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.

Nope, but as you said, you don't need manuals to learn how things work.

And the manuals rarely tell you how it works... more just how to work it.

> I was reading before kindergarten, but it was Dr. Suess and other books
> like that.

I guess I had a bit of a jump start on you there, then.  Dunno what's
typical.

I mean, my dad didn't learn to read until he was in his mid-thirties.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list