not OT : fear

On 7/31/2022 8:52 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/31/2022 06:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 7/31/2022 5:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2022 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> We're targeting the "junior high" crowd -- 11 - 13yo.  The thinking
>>>> being
>>>> that you want to get them "pointed" in a STEM direction before they
>>>> start
>>>> their high school education (which, in many places, requires students to
>>>> choose
>>>> a business vs. college vs. vocational path for their curriculum --
>>>> prior to
>>>> that, everyone is largely treated the same)
>>>
>>> That makes sense. I assume some slurp it up and ask for more while the
>>> bulk stumble along.
>>
>> We have "magnet schools" here that "specialize" in particular subject
>> areas.  Students can freely attend *if* accepted.  You'd not want a
>> kid to get interested in STEM in his final year in the school system
>> and have missed out on those years when he *could* have received a
>> more targeted education (if his interest had been developed sooner).
>>
>> The goal of the education system should be to provide the best
>> education appropriate to the needs/desires of the student.
>>
>> Did *you* know what you wanted to do with your life when you were 14?
> 
> I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life when I entered college at 16. 

I'd already been accepted at another university; I was doing medical research
with a professor, there, and had plans to continue along that path.

I'd applied to MIT on a whim -- a fellow student had an extra application so
I filled it out sitting in Fysics class that day.

I was mailing my acceptance letter to the first school the day the acceptance
from MIT arrived.  Once my folks saw that, the decision was effectively out
of my hands.  <frown>  I was a bit annoyed but, what can you do?

You have to "declare" a "course" (their name for a "major") in your
freshman year.  Prior to that, everyone is taking the standard engineering
fare of physics, calculus, difeqs, etc.  But, at year 2, you need to have
focused on the requirements established for your "course".

I wanted to design computers (hardware).  The EE department had three courses:
   6.1 -- traditional EE
   6.2 -- something like "bioelectronic engineering"?  no idea, no one took it!
   6.3 -- computer science
There is a core set of classwork / curriculum for all EE's (just like there
is a core set of classwork for any student, there) but specialized courses
geared towards the specific course within that department.  So, every EE got
a smattering of programming, analog design, digital design, etc.   But,
the balance shifted based on which of the three courses you elected.

OBVIOUSLY, the 6.3 tract would teach me how to design computers, right?

<frown>  After a year, I realized much of what I was taking was regarding
software engineering; AI, compiler/language design, advanced algorithms,
probabilistic systems analysis, etc.  So, scurried to find suitable specific
courses that focused more on hardware -- digital labs, etc.

I suspect I ended up with the better education than if I'd gone the 6.1
route (or, the mystery that was 6.2).  Definitely more and better job
prospects.  The regular EE's could "program" but didn't know shit about
designing clever algorithms, human interface issues, etc.  Ask them to build
an AI and they'd look at you askance.  Or, select a programming language
or OS environment under which to develop ("You mean there's more than
Windows?")

And, there's a very small -- shrinking -- market for designing processors.
I caught the tail end of that and managed to get some satisfaction with
the few that I designed.  But, now, it's more effective to build a
virtual processor, in software, than to actually fabricate one in hardware!

I am excited to be able to FINALLY use some of the fancier technologies that
I was taught decades back in a real product.  "Multitasking" was a big yawn
(doing that in products back in the late 70's -- without ANY hardware resources
to support it!).  Ditto for RT.  But, to design a VMM system, build AI's,
hot-swap software (and hardware) components, cyptography, DSM, robust security,
human factors engineering, capabilities based ACL, etc. in a *big* way is
something most designs -- let alone EMBEDDED designs -- can't even think about!

It's nice to see my education was prescient and not obsolete the day the degree
was awarded!  (pity the folks taught about *today's* technology and wonder how
they'll forever be playing catch-up)

> Today I'd go for cognitive science but neither that or computer science existed 
> at the time. FORTRAN IV and punchcards didn't light my fire either. It was 

I have a fond memory of punch cards.  My first courses used batch submitted
Hollerith cards for job submission.  "Shit!  ABENDed on a bad JCL card?"

And, they were excellent "note paper"!  <grin>

But, it's much more rewarding to see something DO something as a result of the
instructions you've encoded -- not just Blinkenlites.

> years later when I could wirewrap a 8080 board on the kitchen table and make it 
> do tricks that I started easing into software.

Almost every one of my software projects ran on hardware that I'd designed.
But, you quickly realize that you can design hardware in a few manweeks that 
can take manYEARS to "finish" the associated software.  Especially if you
are cost-conscious in your design.  (the idea of writing desktop code just
doesn't appeal to me; I like being able to make hardware that is NOT
sufficient for the job *do* the job!)

And, if you're creative and have a broad base of application technology
behind you, you can come up with some really interesting/fun solutions to
problems!

> I never did really have a plan. Shit happened and I adapted. The closest I came 
> to a plan was an attempt to remain in the dying US machine tool business.

When I left the 9-to-5, it was because of the "we don't have time to do it
right but we'll have time to do it OVER" mindset that was so common.  Rush
a product out and worry about fixing it, later.

Do you REALLY think I want to repeat this design, AGAIN?  Especially
after I've told you why your approach is so wrong??  Why don't *you*
repeat it -- without me!  :>

After that, I set out a pretty deliberate path to acquire the skills
and experience that I wanted on other clients' dimes.  (I don't believe
you can truly learn a technology without actually solving real problems
in/with it so let others present the problems that I can *learn* with!)

/Pro bono/ work is another great opportunity to explore new solution
spaces as they've never got the money nor expertise to apply technology
in a meaningful way.  When I was interested in learning about RDBMSs,
I developed a "donation tracking" system for a non-profit.  I used
a distributed set of thin clients to provide "user/sensor interfaces"
to a single server running the app -- and hosting the DBMS.  A relation
to track donors.  A relation to track locations in the facility.
A relation to track volunteers/staff (folks who act on donations and
inventory).  A relation to track the various sensory inputs (barcode
readers, scales, cameras, etc.).  And, a relation to track the
actual donations/dispositions.

And, a simple query to tell me what SHOULD be "in inventory" at any
given time -- so you could *audit* yourself (we hired accountants to
do that to lend extra credibility to their results).  As such, you
could tell your donors how their donations were used as well as
how much "inventory shrinkage".

[A material donation was tagged with a barcode and placed in a location.
The barcode label associated with that location let the system keep track
of what was where.  No need to constantly be reshuffling product to
ensure all of the Dell computers are in one area, HP in another,
monitors over here, printers over there, etc.  Let the RDBMS tell you
where everything is located and free yourself from anal-retentive
behavior!

Some years later, I was visiting a furniture warehouse.  Shelving units
30 feet tall!  And absolutely no order to how items were stored -- there
were end tables and lamps sharing one space, lamps and couches in another,
couches and matresses in yet another, etc.

When I asked the forklift operator how he found things:  "I've got a pick
ticket.  It tells me where to go and what to take from that location in
order to satisfy this order."

"But, how do you decide where to PUT things when new stock arrives?"

"Wherever it fits!  I tell the computer where I put each item and,
if everyone does their job properly, that's where it will be when
it is eventually needed!"

Amusing to see that *the* logical solution was so evident -- in each
such application!]

[[I operate similarly, at home.  Files on hundreds (literally) of disks.
Why waste time "organizing" them by some arbitrary criteria?  Just let
a DBMS track each file's location and issue a query when you're looking
for "Project X" related stuff -- or, a particular ISO, etc.]]

On 8/1/2022 1:51 AM, Don Y wrote:

> You have to "declare" a "course" (their name for a "major") in your
> freshman year.  Prior to that, everyone is taking the standard engineering

s.b. "END of freshman year"

> fare of physics, calculus, difeqs, etc.  But, at year 2, you need to have
> focused on the requirements established for your "course".

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 21:56:52 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 07/31/2022 08:25 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 17:43:10 -0700, Don Y
>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/31/2022 5:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 07/31/2022 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> We're targeting the "junior high" crowd -- 11 - 13yo.  The thinking being
>>>>> that you want to get them "pointed" in a STEM direction before they start
>>>>> their high school education (which, in many places, requires students to
>>>>> choose
>>>>> a business vs. college vs. vocational path for their curriculum -- prior to
>>>>> that, everyone is largely treated the same)
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense. I assume some slurp it up and ask for more while the bulk
>>>> stumble along.
>>>
>>> We have "magnet schools" here that "specialize" in particular subject
>>> areas.  Students can freely attend *if* accepted.  You'd not want a
>>> kid to get interested in STEM in his final year in the school system
>>> and have missed out on those years when he *could* have received a
>>> more targeted education (if his interest had been developed sooner).
>>>
>>> The goal of the education system should be to provide the best
>>> education appropriate to the needs/desires of the student.
>>>
>>> Did *you* know what you wanted to do with your life when you were 14?
>>
>> I did when I was 10. Electrical engineer.
>>
>
>My family pushed that but I wasn't so sure. It's a first generation to 
>go to college thing. Blue collar workers in manufacturing plants see the 
>engineers as top dogs. It takes a couple of generations before doctors, 
>lawyers, architects, and so forth become options let alone gender 
>studies and English literature.

My dad delivered milk. My mom worked in a cafeteria. I was the first
in the family to go to college. But I had a source of dead tube TV
sets and neon sign transformers and WWII surplus radars and flashtubes
so played with them. There's not much a kid can do now with a dead
cell phone.

Hey, I'm having troubles with Dropbox and don't trust it to get files
from home to work. So, use a memory stick? I just realized that my
cell phone can work as a memory stick. Duh.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 01:51:04 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>On 7/31/2022 8:52 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 07/31/2022 06:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2022 5:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 07/31/2022 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> We're targeting the "junior high" crowd -- 11 - 13yo.  The thinking
>>>>> being
>>>>> that you want to get them "pointed" in a STEM direction before they
>>>>> start
>>>>> their high school education (which, in many places, requires students to
>>>>> choose
>>>>> a business vs. college vs. vocational path for their curriculum --
>>>>> prior to
>>>>> that, everyone is largely treated the same)
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense. I assume some slurp it up and ask for more while the
>>>> bulk stumble along.
>>>
>>> We have "magnet schools" here that "specialize" in particular subject
>>> areas.  Students can freely attend *if* accepted.  You'd not want a
>>> kid to get interested in STEM in his final year in the school system
>>> and have missed out on those years when he *could* have received a
>>> more targeted education (if his interest had been developed sooner).
>>>
>>> The goal of the education system should be to provide the best
>>> education appropriate to the needs/desires of the student.
>>>
>>> Did *you* know what you wanted to do with your life when you were 14?
>> 
>> I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life when I entered college at 16. 
>
>I'd already been accepted at another university; I was doing medical research
>with a professor, there, and had plans to continue along that path.
>
>I'd applied to MIT on a whim -- a fellow student had an extra application so
>I filled it out sitting in Fysics class that day.
>
>I was mailing my acceptance letter to the first school the day the acceptance
>from MIT arrived.  Once my folks saw that, the decision was effectively out
>of my hands.  <frown>  I was a bit annoyed but, what can you do?
>
>You have to "declare" a "course" (their name for a "major") in your
>freshman year.  Prior to that, everyone is taking the standard engineering
>fare of physics, calculus, difeqs, etc.  But, at year 2, you need to have
>focused on the requirements established for your "course".
>
>I wanted to design computers (hardware).  The EE department had three courses:
>   6.1 -- traditional EE
>   6.2 -- something like "bioelectronic engineering"?  no idea, no one took it!
>   6.3 -- computer science
>There is a core set of classwork / curriculum for all EE's (just like there
>is a core set of classwork for any student, there) but specialized courses
>geared towards the specific course within that department.  So, every EE got
>a smattering of programming, analog design, digital design, etc.   But,
>the balance shifted based on which of the three courses you elected.
>
>OBVIOUSLY, the 6.3 tract would teach me how to design computers, right?
>
><frown>  After a year, I realized much of what I was taking was regarding
>software engineering; AI, compiler/language design, advanced algorithms,
>probabilistic systems analysis, etc.  So, scurried to find suitable specific
>courses that focused more on hardware -- digital labs, etc.

Computer Science seems to have little to do with computers.


>
>I suspect I ended up with the better education than if I'd gone the 6.1
>route (or, the mystery that was 6.2).  Definitely more and better job
>prospects.  The regular EE's could "program" but didn't know shit about
>designing clever algorithms, human interface issues, etc.  Ask them to build
>an AI and they'd look at you askance.  Or, select a programming language
>or OS environment under which to develop ("You mean there's more than
>Windows?")
>
>And, there's a very small -- shrinking -- market for designing processors.
>I caught the tail end of that and managed to get some satisfaction with
>the few that I designed.  But, now, it's more effective to build a
>virtual processor, in software, than to actually fabricate one in hardware!
>
>I am excited to be able to FINALLY use some of the fancier technologies that
>I was taught decades back in a real product.  "Multitasking" was a big yawn
>(doing that in products back in the late 70's -- without ANY hardware resources
>to support it!).  Ditto for RT.  But, to design a VMM system, build AI's,
>hot-swap software (and hardware) components, cyptography, DSM, robust security,
>human factors engineering, capabilities based ACL, etc. in a *big* way is
>something most designs -- let alone EMBEDDED designs -- can't even think about!
>
>It's nice to see my education was prescient and not obsolete the day the degree
>was awarded!  (pity the folks taught about *today's* technology and wonder how
>they'll forever be playing catch-up)
>
>> Today I'd go for cognitive science but neither that or computer science existed 
>> at the time. FORTRAN IV and punchcards didn't light my fire either. It was 
>
>I have a fond memory of punch cards.  My first courses used batch submitted
>Hollerith cards for job submission.  "Shit!  ABENDed on a bad JCL card?"

Cards were a huge improvement over paper tape. I hacked the PDP-11
assembler and Focal-11 to both read cards, and interfaced an IBM 029
card punch to a PDP-11 to convert paper tape programs to cards.

Disk drives were expensive and unreliable at first.

mandag den 1. august 2022 kl. 05.31.34 UTC+2 skrev Clifford Heath:
> On 1/8/22 12:29, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 09:02:36 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_...@please.net> 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 31/7/22 15:37, rbowman wrote: 
> >>> On 07/30/2022 04:09 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote: 
> >>>> Engineers on the brink of extinction threaten entire tech ecosystems: 
> >>>> https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/18/electrical_engineers_extinction/ 
> >>> 
> >>> I think the article has a valid point. I've got hopes for the maker 
> >>> culture but I don't know how many participate. Our new library has a 
> >>> nicely equipped makerspace with several printers, scanners, laser 
> >>> cutters and so forth. 
> >> 
> >> The maker movement is mostly made of regret. Teen years wasted playing 
> >> video games, didn't learn any construction skills, but find themselves 
> >> dependent on stuff that other folk have made. Get the urge to know how 
> >> to make stuff, but have no-one (but other ignorami) to teach them anything. 
> >> 
> >> Don't know how to use a saw or a chisel, but they try to build and use 
> >> CNC mills and laser cutters. No idea how to choose the right glue or use 
> >> a welder, so they make things in CAD and use a 3D printer. Have never 
> >> fixed their bicycle, but they want to build android robots. Don't 
> >> understand aerodynamics enough to build a good paper dart, but they want 
> >> to customize drones. 
> >> 
> >> Sad really. 
> > 
> > 
> > A manual mill is better to learn on. You can feel the forces.
> A plain bastard file or a hacksaw is better still. If you don't 
> understand cutting, you have no business using a cutting machine, let 
> alone an automated one. 
> 
> When my uncle (retired watchmaker) started his apprenticeship in the 
> 1950s, one of the first tasks was to cut two rough 2" cubes, and using 
> only files and scrapers, to make them into identical cubes such that any 
> pair of faces would align perfectly on all four edges, and be flat 
> enough that you could pick up the other block by stiction alone. That 
> took four months of work. 

I get the point but today that would a total waste of time, learning to to do 
it with a mill and surface grinder would be much better use of time
 
> Without understanding the processes that can turn two rough blocks of 
> mild steel into perfectly cubic gauge blocks, the rest of the 
> apprenticeship would have been wasted. As are the efforts of most `makers`. 

nonsense

On 08/01/2022 02:51 AM, Don Y wrote:
> It's nice to see my education was prescient and not obsolete the day the
> degree
> was awarded!  (pity the folks taught about *today's* technology and
> wonder how
> they'll forever be playing catch-up)

One of my senior projects was a thought experiment to design an 
automated library retrieval system. We were thinking in terms of 
microfiche in concrete terms but the media was TBD. About 40 years later 
when the library installed their new system to spit out your desired DVD 
it was somehow familiar.

Like aircraft designers waiting for lightweight IC engines the seeds 
were there waiting for the technology to develop. There were dead-ends 
like bit slice processors or bubble memory but eventually we got there.

The art of thinking was the important takeaway. Otherwise you're looking 
at a glorified trade school turning out Maytag repairmen. That's not to 
say we don't need repairmen.

On 08/01/2022 03:06 AM, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/1/2022 1:51 AM, Don Y wrote:
>
>> You have to "declare" a "course" (their name for a "major") in your
>> freshman year.  Prior to that, everyone is taking the standard
>> engineering
>
> s.b. "END of freshman year"

RPI's core was two years. For example we used Resnick & Halliday for 
physics (Not that Robert Resnick being a RPI professor had anything to 
do with it).  By the spring of the sophomore year you got to the juicy 
stuff, quantum. The final two years often revisited the core curriculum 
in more depth. Thermodynamics, electromagnetic theory, strength of 
materials, and so forth weren't strangers, although they did tend to 
separate the sheep from the goats.

On 08/01/2022 07:30 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> Computer Science seems to have little to do with computers.

Nor does it have much to do with practical coding in its pure form.

> Disk drives were expensive and unreliable at first.

What, you didn't like the 2311, 7.5 MB in a package the size of a 
washing machine? Removable media, how cool is that?

On 08/01/2022 07:24 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> My dad delivered milk. My mom worked in a cafeteria. I was the first
> in the family to go to college. But I had a source of dead tube TV
> sets and neon sign transformers and WWII surplus radars and flashtubes
> so played with them. There's not much a kid can do now with a dead
> cell phone.

My uncle had a radio and eventually a TV store so there was an entire 
backroom full of dead chassis, plus a big box of questionable tubes that 
needed testing. He'd started the store with a guy he'd sort of adopted. 
Joe, the guy, would make house calls to repair TVs, with a station wagon 
full of parts. The dreaded words were 'I have to take it back to the 
shop' where my uncle would dig into the guts.

> Hey, I'm having troubles with Dropbox and don't trust it to get files
> from home to work. So, use a memory stick? I just realized that my
> cell phone can work as a memory stick. Duh.

One of the MS things I've come to like is One Drive. We have a corporate 
one plus the personal. I used to put files on our ftp server but now I 
copy them to One Drive. It's also handy for work in progress.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 17:43:10 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/31/2022 5:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2022 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> We're targeting the "junior high" crowd -- 11 - 13yo.  The thinking being
>>>> that you want to get them "pointed" in a STEM direction before they start
>>>> their high school education (which, in many places, requires students to
>>>> choose
>>>> a business vs. college vs. vocational path for their curriculum -- prior to
>>>> that, everyone is largely treated the same)
>>>
>>> That makes sense. I assume some slurp it up and ask for more while the bulk
>>> stumble along.
>>
>> We have "magnet schools" here that "specialize" in particular subject
>> areas.  Students can freely attend *if* accepted.  You'd not want a
>> kid to get interested in STEM in his final year in the school system
>> and have missed out on those years when he *could* have received a
>> more targeted education (if his interest had been developed sooner).
>>
>> The goal of the education system should be to provide the best
>> education appropriate to the needs/desires of the student.
>>
>> Did *you* know what you wanted to do with your life when you were 14?
> 
> I did when I was 10. Electrical engineer.
> 

Age five for me, courtesy of a post-Sputnik kid's science program called 
"Discovery 64".  They were interviewing some character in a lab coat who 
said something along the lines of, "Scientific knowledge is growing so 
fast that in the future, we'll need people who can bring together 
several fields--'synthesists'."  (I remember that last coinage quite 
vividly.)

The show went off the air the following year, IIRC, so I know when it 
was to pretty good accuracy.  We chronically underestimate bright 
youngsters.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com