Hi Les, Tim and Ric;
You have hit on a topic that has long been near and dear to my heart.
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:37 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:13 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:18 -0700, Les wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not surprised. Even when computers are in a good state,
you
can spend far too much time setting up to do what you want, compared
to
actually doing it. Then there's the usual sorry state of PCs in
schools
with staff that are technically illiterate.
I've spent many years working in school, and to be honest, I think
we're
much better off with less computers, not more. People skills are
more
important, and they're shocking, these days.
That's one of the main functions of school. I have always opposed special education for the gifted on that basis. The most important lesson that gifted children need is not just the development of special skills but how to live in a world of ordinary people. I have seen too many people who were prodigies of some kind or another in their youth who have never developed, or bypassed, everyday living skills.
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I
wanted
him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the
mouse
pad. <sigh>
I have tried to teach several people to use a computer from square one. Your anecdote is not uncommon. I have long believed that Linux has the opportunity to start over in desktop design in a way M$ never could, even if they wanted to.
I would like to see really well thought out and genuinely intuitively designed front ends for Linux that demonstrate the ingenuity and intelligence that has gone into the backend. 5/6 of the world does not yet use or have access to computers -- but they will. I will bet that 95% of those do not want or need to know how a computer works for computers to be useful in their lives.
Linux and Linux developers have the opportunity to meet that need.
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
Dismissing a failure to 'get it', avoids the failure to anticipate needs. And condemning users of stupidity -- I am not accusing you of that, but I see it all the time on Linux lists -- moves the blame onto the victim. I don't believe that most of those who have basic difficulties are stupid, but even if they were, shouldn't a computer be a device that helps people with a reduced metal capacity overcome the trials and frustrations of life not increase those difficulties. If an Operating System and/or an application can't do that, in the universal sense, what use is it? ==================================================================== I have moved this to a new thread. I think this is a good topic. How can we make the systems better at helping us.
Look at the DARPA Grand Challenge. Look up the robotics challenges done at high schools. Check out VEX that Radio Shack supports. Then take a look at RoboSapiens. I had built a small robot, driven by a pair of model tank motors, using a BASIC stamp with wire sensor whiskers and erector set pieces to put it all together, and showed it to my grandkids. One was thrilled, but the older one said "That's not a robot. RoboSapiens is a Robot". And as much as it wounded my pride, he was right. RoboSapiens hit his expectation much closer than my little 3 wheeled wonder. Moreover, we need a robotics platform that costs less than $100, gives functionality like RoboSapiens, can be torn down and rebuilt, has extra parts and includes sensors, camera, wireless interface to a PC, has its own internal processor. If done right, it can actually help disabled people. Maybe like a guide dog for the blind, or a hearing animal for the deaf, or assist with fetching for the severely disabled. Why can't we do this today. The hardware certainly exists. The software is mostly known, the power supplies using Lithium Phosphate would be safe, have long life and great capabilities with no fire hazard. Motors are more capable than ever. Servo's are certainly powerful enough today. If we can build a power screwdriver, why can't we build a mechanical man with that amount of power in his appendages, with navigational capability, grasping ability and even speech interface?
IS there no will? maybe someone just doesn't have the right combination of talents, or maybe the right hardware design, or just a lack of "flash insight" to the right combination. Where is the mechanical "Johnny Appleseed" that will power us into the next generation of industrial and consumer science? I know it is out there. I can see the hints all around, from the "EyeRobot" to the Ipod, to RoboSapiens. It is just not quite reached critical mass. And the mental lever? the AI system that will present us with ever newer viewpoints to solve problems? I think that is a few more years out, but coming.
Lets not do it for war, not for anything other than we can. And it is needed. And a bit of profit wouldn't be bad either.
And forget global warming, just build a better man.
Who would do it?
For power, look at www.valence.com Their lithium phosphate batteries have long life and don't even short out when shot through, nor do they "flame on" (c) Marvel., as implemented by other batteries.
Check out www.hobbypeople.com for some of their giant servo's. Look at some of the battery power tools to see how much torque can be generated today. 640x480 cameras are available on keychains. A wireless connection is about $30, and can probably be done cheaper than that if one works hard at it. Walking robotics are now more efficient. Check out MIT and Florida state for their latest work.
And as to the generation of AI, well, MIT has come quite close, and we know that the various military research institutes has some really smart people doing wonderful (or not so wonderful depending on your veiw point) things.
Why can't Dragon systems software be combined with all this stuff to give us a new platform, one that is quite different in interactivity. I bet if you could make it look like some movie star, you could sell a million of them (or more).
Regards, Les H