Over at the BBC, we read that the “home of Anakin Skywalker threatened by dune,” with awesome pictures:
So my question is, what will archaeologists think in 1,000 years when they dig this up? How many careers will be wasted trying to link the bizarre architecture to some real culture? How many anthropologists will be confused by the strange objects they find?
I hope someone has at least left them a note.
At Light Blue Touchpaper, Ross Anderson says “We have a vacancy for a postdoc to work on the psychology of cybercrime and deception for two years from October.”
I think this role has all sorts of fascinating potential, and wanted to help get the word out in my own small way.
Can we just agree that “which” and “that” are pretty much interchangable? If you’re relying on a modern audience to be able to perceive the difference in meaning between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, you’ve pretty much already lost.
Which, as they say, makes a mockery of that rule.
Alternately, “That, as they say, makes a mockery of that rule.”
Alternately, “That, as they say, makes a mockery of which rule.”
I think we may be taking this too far.
I just re-read “A few words on Doug Engelbart.” If you’ve been reading the news lately, you’re probably seen a headline like “Douglas C. Engelbart, Inventor of the Computer Mouse, Dies at 88,” or seen him referred to as the fellow who gave the “mother of all demos.” But as Bret Victor points out, to focus on the mouse (or “The Demo”) is to miss the point. The mouse was, in a very important way, a spin-off from his real work.
The work that Engelbart cared about was how to augment human cognition. By finding the right problem, at the right time, Engelbart found himself in a position where the spin-offs from his research agenda were, of themselves, tremendously important. (The formulation of “the right problem, at the right time” comes from Hamming’s talk, “You and Your Research,” which is well worth reading. It’s also clear from the Augmentation paper that Engelbart had a staged approach in which he could build towards his final goal, aligning with Hamming’s “right way.”)
So when you hear people talking about the inventor of the mouse, you might give some thought to the question of what you can do to conceptualize your work so that you get important results and impact.
To make that more concrete, in my own case, the way I’m approaching information security is to ask “why do things go wrong so often?” This forces me to think about the ways and frequency that they go wrong, and what we can do about them. It also led me into thinking about how we can make security thinking more accessible, resulting in some games and our NEAT advice on better warnings.
I have to start off by apologizing for how very late this review is, an embarrassing long time ago, the kind folks at No Starch Press very kindly gave me a copy of “Super Scratch Programming Adventure” to review. Scratch for those that aren’t familiar is a kids oriented programming language designed by Mitchel Resnick of the MIT Media Lab, the same team that developed the programmable bricks for Lego Mindstorms.
The book is in manga format and very entertaining and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It was so much fun, that when my then ten year old asked to learn how to program with the long term goal of writing his own minecraft mods, I handed him the book and asked him what he thought. To say he whipped through the book is an understatement. He actually finished it in one reading and immediately asked if he could start playing with Scratch on the family laptop.
Over the next few days he worked his way through some of the programs in the book and put the book aside for a long while. Recently we were talking about an upcoming Lego robotics class he had coming up and he remembered that he had the copy of “Super Scratch Programming Adventure” in his room. He dug it out and this time he worked his way through all the programs quite quickly.
I asked him what he thought of the book and said it was very good; that he really liked the comic book format and that he wished more books were done that way. At this point he’s excited enough that we’ll either dig deeper into Scratch together or we’ll switch to a games oriented text like No Starch’s “Realm of Racket” or possibly Sweigarts’s “Invent Your Own Computer Games with Python”.
Regardless of what we decide to do however, I can highly recommend ““Super Scratch Programming Adventure” as a great introduction to programming for kids or even non-kids who want a first very friendly exposure to programming. And again, my apologies to the folks at No Starch Press for taking so long on this review.