Re: Words every high school graduate should know...

cybercypher <cybercypher75@xxxxxxx> writes:

Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
cybercypher <cybercypher75@xxxxxxx> writes:

I was talking about the basic concepts. You know, user input via
the keyboard, the mouse, the scanner, and the microphone, and
machine output via the monitor, the printer, the speaker(s), and
the headphones. That's kinda analogous to knowing the difference
between a noun and a verb, not to understanding Chomsky's 500
ways to think about syntax and traces.

I'd say that's actually more "knowing how to use a computer" or
maybe "knowing what the big parts are for" rather than "knowing
how a computer works",

You can quibble all you like in order to make your point. You can
nitpick down to the level of subatomic particles to prove that no
one really knows how a computer works. You can even tell me that
"The Computer works in mysterious ways" if you want to. I don't
really care. But all you're doing is claiming that no one knows how
anything works.

No, what I'm claiming is that those who know something, but less,
about how something works tend to think that the amount they don't yet
know is smaller (and less important) than those who actually know more
do of their own gaps.

And that based on that it's somewhat amusing to watch people criticise
others for "not knowing how something works".

I'm also claiming that things have gotten more complicated. When I
started thirty years ago, it *was* reasonable to believe that you
pretty much knew how your personal computer worked. Perhaps not at
the atomic level, but in terms of the circuitry, the CPU architecture
and its assembly language, what passed for the OS, the way I/O worked,
the way information was stored on external media, even the basics of
how the chip itself worked physically. And the way the computer went
about running programs. There was probably little you could have
asked me about the "how" of the machines I used back then that I
couldn't have given a reasonable answer to.

That's simply not the case anymore.

To know how to use a machine, you have to have some idea of how it
works, what it does, how it does it, and why it does it, not just
how to turn it on and off.

If you're going to fall back to "have some idea of how it works", I
have no problem. Although, I may have to disagree with the notion.
What does it mean to "have some idea how a television works"? An LCD
set getting input over an HDMI cable and controlled by an infrared
remote control probably doesn't have a whole lot of "how" in common
with a CRT getting an NTSC signal from an antenna and controlled by
knobs. And yet most people probably have the same (very sketchy)
mental model for how both work.

which was what you explicitly said you didn't mean.

You and I don't mean the same thing when we use the phrase "how a
computer works". You define it in the most extreme manner possible.
Only someone with an agenda would do that. I intend the phrase to be
understood by reasonable people who cannot claim your level of
computer science expertise wrapped in the omentum of false humility
you bring along as baggage.

Dissemblig aside, I don't even know what I would consider a
"reasonable" level, let alone what you do. I'd say that a most basic
level of understanding how a computer worked would include things like
the CPU with registers, binary logic, and assembly language (at least
knowing what they are), but I don't see how such a knowledge is at all
necessary to being able to operate one.

That level of "how a computer works" for a car is
akin to "the right pedal makes it go faster and the left one makes
it slow down; the steering wheel makes it turn; gasoline goes in
the gas tank (wherever that is) and gets burned up in the engine
and exhaust comes out the back". Only slightly sketchier than my
knowledge about cars.

Your response is ludicrous. I can't believe that such a talented
linguistic and computer scientist is so ignorant of the physics and
chemistry of automobile engines and chassis.

Ah. The argument from personal incredulity. I know a little more,
but not much. I know enough about the basic physics that I could
probably work out reasonable guesses from first principles if I had
to. But no. Compared to the average person who has ever worked on an
engine, my knowledge of how a car works is very sketchy. Which hasn't
gotten in the way of my successfully using them for decades.

But I wouldn't say I really "know how a car works". And I certainly
wouldn't trust my knowledge to be able to help me fix one if it
broke.

I think I said "troubleshoot" and not "fix one if it broke".

I don't think my answer would manifestly change.

Most of the problems I've seen people encounter with their
computers wouldn't really be solved by the level of knowledge you
imply.

But I have great success solving all sorts of computer problems even
though I don't know anything about the architecture of the chips,
the OSes, or the programs they use. Frequently, though, all it takes
is rebooting the damned thing.

Yes, that can often make symptoms go away. Sometimes even in a way
that they are unlikely to come back soon. I wouldn't say that it
implies much about knowledge of how a computer works other than that
it can be turned off and turned on and that often doing so can appear
to fix things.

I think you ought to change "you imply" to "I infer". You know what
you mean, but you've decided to distort to the nines what I mean.
Don't be audacious enough to tell me what I imply; be honest enough
to tell us what you infer. It's more reasonable.

No, actually I thought I was characterizing your statements
accurately, so obviously my inference is different from your intended
implication and I really *don't* know what you mean by "know how a
computer works".

I did point out to somebody last week that he would have
better luck getting a network connection if he actually plugged
the cable into his laptop, but I don't think I was actually
telling him anything he didn't already know about how the box
worked.

Merely a brainfart on that somebody's part, I'll wager.

Of course.


Maybe you and Oleg should sing a duet about the atmospheric
architecture of noctilucent clouds and why they exist.

I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to start.

Oh, my ears and whiskers! You blow a middle C on a pitchpipe,
imitate it with your voice by crooning "mi, mi, mi, midle-C", and
then start at the beginning, go on to the middle, and stop when you
come to the end.

The problem is that I don't know where the beginning is, let alone how
to find the middle from there.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Little Jim - Parts 3 and 4
    ... Engine Man's Will ... Knowing that my wife and other family have no appreciation of, ... Knowing also that my wife has notified the local scrap yard that, ...
    (uk.rec.engines.stationary)
  • Re: 30-70 Times...
    ... of little consequence without knowing how much torque you have to play ... the rev range the bulk of the torque is available. ... What matters is the distribution of POWER ... What you actually said was that a smaller, higher revving engine wouldn't be able to accelerate a large, heavy car as well as a larger, lower revving engine. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
  • Re: etesters
    ... engine. ... They listed a bunch of our products without our knowing about it. ... There should 30 entries per page or so, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Weve decided...
    ... The Accord is one of the few cars I'd let Tim Kemp borrow ... > knowing he couldn't break the engine.* ... The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; ...
    (uk.rec.cars.modifications)